BR 

Msg 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 



| <&/ui/i B.g85. \ 



p UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. j 



■ M A ?n 




^ ^ /' ^ ^ ■'i A a v 



E S S Y S 



ON SEVERAL 



CONTROVERTED SUBJECTS, 



IN THE PRESENT 



DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES 



OF 



Cfmsttan Cfmrcfteg. 



*1 



I ^ X BY JAMES WATT. 



GLASGOW: 

PRINTED BY J. HEDDERW1CK JND CO, 
SOLD BY M. OGLE, AND J. & A. DUNCAN, GLASGOW; 
J. OGLE, AND A. BLACK, EDINBURGH ; E. LESLIE, 
DUNDEE; J. MILLAR, PAISLEY ; AND 
R» OGLE, LONDON. 



1810. 



PREFACE, 



Aware that the publication of the first three of 
the following Essays, may be disapproved by some 
whose opinion the writer highly respects, he begs 
to suggest to them one apology, besides those con- 
tained in the Essays themselves. — The good opinion 
of Christian brethren, is an important consideration-, 
and if weighty charges are industriously circulated 
among them, tending to sap the foundations of 
Christian love, the party charged, if innocent, seems 
warranted to pkad not guilty, and to show that the 
charges are groundless. To show that such charges, 
as " daringly and profanely impeaching the King 
of Zion, — treating with lightness and disesteem the 
order of Christ's house, — lighting against God, — 
scattering 'the sheep of Christ," &c. &c. are mis- 
taken and groundless " accusations of the brethren/' 
is one design of these Essays. 

The subjects of the others, seemed sufficiently 
important, in the present state of matters, to warrant 
the republication of those parts formerly published. 
A few alterations and additions have been annexed, 
which it is presumed, will appear improvements. 
Two of the Essays have not formerly appeared in 
any shape. 

The brevity studied throughout the whole, it is 
hoped, will apologize for the abridged manner of 
quoting the sentiments of others, as long as those 
sentiments are not misrepresented. 



CONTENTS. 



Page. 



Reply to Mr. Braidwood, of Edinburgh, on 

the Lord's Supper without Pastors, 1 

Do. on the Pastor's Office, - - - - 33 

— — Do. on Separation from the World, in 

Christian Worship, ----- 51 

Mr.WARDLAw,of Glasgow, onRom.iv. 59 

Mr. P. Edwards, on the Greek terms, 

pharos and and Female Com- 
munion, --------69 

— Mr. Greville Ewing, of Glasgow, 
on the Syriac Terms, for Elder and 
Bishop, - -- -- -- --77 

Do. on the Greek phrase «*»flsw*7£f€¥*y«sani J 

" speaking the truth in love," Eph. 

iv. 15. - - 83 

Mr. Dick, of Glasgow, on Presbytery, 

Acts xv. 93 

Mr. Jerment, of London; on Christian 

Experience, - -- ----105 

Of Simon Magus, and Simon Peter, Acts viii. 115 

Of the Abrahamic Covenant, ----- 123 



ESSAYS, Vc. 



ON THE QUESTION, 

%i Whether the Lord's Supper may he observed, 
in any Case, without the Presence of cm 
ordained Pastor and a Church furnished 
with such a Pastor, or such Pastors and 
Deacons" 

H Bepig to €@t\ 'BraiHtooo&'fif 

Arguments on the Subject, in his LETTERS on 
<< Church Order," — Letters V. VI. and VII. 



A Letter to a Christian Brother, 

Dear Brother, y 

1 will scarcely yield to any 

of my brethren, in affection for Mr. Braidwood, or 
in respect for his talents as they frequently appear. 
It is, therefore, a very painful task for me to differ 
with him on any important point, and much more 
painful, to do so in public, It is also a most 
painful consideration, to think of the grief to both 
sides, which such a difference may occasion, and 
the consequences to which it may lead. The task 
is, to flesh and blood, very unpleasant. There are, 
however, some considerations of sufficient import- 
ance to counterbalance all these, to lead to risk all 
the grief and pain which may accompany, or suc- 
ceed, this task. 

A 



2 



If the prohibition of the observance of the Lord's 
supper, by small worshipping -societies, until they 
be organized, by obtaining eiders and deacons, be 
no law of Christ, as Mr. B. pleads that it is, and as 
I firmly believe, and think I can prove, that it is 
not. If it be fact, that the submission to this pro- 
hibition, is made a term and condition of christian 
fellowship, so that believers cannot be admitted to 
it, but by this submission; and that brethren can- 
not be retained in this fellowship, but by continu- 
ing this submission; if it be fact, that at this day, 
multitudes are kept asunder by this prohibition, 
who, but for it, might be walking together in the 
fellowship of the gospel, edifying one another, and 
glorifying God in sweet society; and that, by this 
prohibition, some believers are at this day separated 
from their brethren, and thus are compelled to ab- 
stain from glorifying and enjoying their God as 
before, in receiving and communicating the offices 
of mutual love and reciprocal edification. If these 
things are so, it is fully time to give this supposed 
law a close investigation, whatever consequences 
some may fear, and however irksome the labour 
may be. 

The scriptural account of the Lord's supper, 
demands our most submissive regard and devout 
attention. This account is given by Paul the 
apostle, 1 Cor. xi. 23 — 27. who refers evidently to 
the transaction narrated in the Gospels, Mat. xxvi. 
26, 27, 28. Mark xiv. 22, 23, 24. Luke xxii. 19, 20. 
This apostle states the matter thus:— « I have re- 
ceived of the Lord that which also I delivered unto 
you; that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which 
he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had 
given thanks, he broke it, and (giving it to " the 
disciples," Mat.) said, take, eat; this is my body 
which is broken for vou; this do in remembrance 



s 



of me. After the same manner also, he took the 
cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the 
New Testament in my blood (« which is shed for 
you," Luke); this do ye as oft as ye drink it, in re- 
membrance of me: for as often as ye eat this bread 
and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's 
death till he come.' 7 The same apostle, in the 
foregoing chapter, 1 Cor. x. 10, 11. explains the 
nature and design of the same ordinance: " The 
cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the com- 
munion of the blood of Christ? The bread which 
we break, is it not the communion of the body of 
Christ? For we, being many, are one bread and one 
body, for we all are partakers of that one bread." 
From these texts we learn several things: 

1. That the Lord's supper belongs to disciples > and to 
such only as are disciples. Says Christ, " Do this in 
remembrance of me," for " my body was broken 
for you; my blood was shed for you" These rea- 
sons for the performance, cannot operate as motives 
in any but believers. Only believers can " show 
forth Christ's death with a view to his coming-," 
for they only are waiting for this as an object cf 
hope. 

2. This ordinance is a very strengthenings comforting, 
merciful, and useful institution. It presents, in a 
figure, to the believer's faith, the sum of the gospel. 
Christ crucified is thus evidently set before our 
eyes. Now, the keeping this in view and in re- 
membrance, is intimately connected with salvation. 
The same apostle says, in this same Epistle, 1 Cor. 
xv. 2. " Ye are saved, if ye keep in remembrance 
that which I delivered unto you," viz. respecting 
the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Thus 
this ordinance leads to live by faith in the Son of 
God. It also, by keeping in view our obligations 
to the Redeemer, excites our gratitude to him, and 
dependence on him for all that we need. 

A 2 



4 



S. We are taught in the above texts ^ that the Lord's 
sapper is a social ordinance. It is denominated " com- 
munion" Though an individual might, whilst eat- 
ing bread and drinking wine, meditate on the im-- 
portance of Christ's death, the benefits resulting to 
himself from it, and the display of divine love in it; 
this could not represent the joint " communion" of 
believers in this benefit, nor be called a feast to 
which believers " come together." Accordingly, 

The order for observing the Lord's supper, 
comes to believers in society, In it Christ speaks 
to his disciples, thus: — " Ye are my disciples; my 
body was broken for you; my blood was shed for 
you; do ye this, therefore, in remembrance of me — 
of my love to you — of the obstacles which this love 
has surmounted — of the good which it communi- 
cates, — I will come again to take you to myself — ■ 
to be glorified in you my saints; to be admired in 
you who believe; therefore, while ye wait for my 
coming, show ye forth my death, and glory in my 
cross. — Ye are all fellow-members of my body, and 
in me members one of another, and separated from 
the world. Therefore, hold fellowship with each 
other in this observance. — Thus excite in each 
other the lively faith, the hope, joy, and gratitude 
of salvation. — Thus strengthen each others' hands, 
and encourage each others' hearts, as ye are on your 
journey heavenward; until I come to take you into 
the general assembly of the first=born, to go no 
more out " Such seems to be the spirit and sense- 
of this institution in our Lord's own appointment. 

Mr. Braidwood cannot avoid recognising in a 
worshipping society of believers, the above-men- 
tioned reasons for attending to the Lord's supper; 
but if such society have not elders, he refuses the 
: nference. To such a society, his gloss of the texts 
tfiujst speak in the following manner: — 



" Ye are Christ's disciples; his body was broken- 
for you s his blood was shed for you, as represented 
in the Lord's supper; but ye must not do this in re- 
membrance of him. He will come again to be 
glorified in you his saints, and admired in you who 
believe; till then glory ye in his cross; but ye must 
not show forth his death in the prospect of that 
glorious event. Ye are all members of the Lord's 
body, and, in him, of each other, and do really 
communicate together in the benefits derived from 
the breaking of the body, and shedding of the 
blood of the Redeemer; but ye must not communi- 
cate together in the appointed representation and 
figure of this communion. Ye may and must have 
the same things exhibited in doctrine, in prayer, in 
praise, in discipline, in christian sympathy, and 
liberality, or in all these together, but by no means 
in this figure. « See ye do it not," on pain of 
offending the Lord Jesus, and on pain of exclusion 
from the fellowship of his people." 

A gloss so repugnant to the text, will not be 
easily supported. One so inconsistent in its dif- 
ferent parts, will not be easily preserved entire. 
But his arguments in support of his ideas must be 
considered. 

These are as follows: — 

1. No society of believers is a church, unless it 
be organized, by having elders and deacons, 

2. No society but a church may observe the 
Lord's supper. 

3. None but an elder may preside in the observ- 
ance of this ordinance. 

Letter V. is employed in attempting to prove, 
1st, What a church is not; 2d, What it is. 

On the first of these, he is obliged to combat the 
idea, that two or three believers met in Christ's 
name make a church. This idea is derived from 
the word of Christ, Mat. xviii. 20. « Where two 
A 3 



6 



or three are met in my name, there am I 
in the midst of them." Our author ridicules the 
idea, 1st, By supposing it congenial to one which,- 
he thinks, may probably be started, that one 
individual may constitute a church. It is true, 
that one individual is a completely " organized 
body." But our author ought to remember, that 
though fi an assembly or meeting of two or three," 
is proper language; and though two or three are 
capable of mutual duty, and mutual privilege; yet, 
to speak of a meeting of one would be absurd; and 
an individual, while alone, is incapable either of 
mutual duty or mutual privilege. I hope our 
author will now see a greater difference between 
one and two, both with regard to words and things, 
than he recognises in his publication. Indeed, 
both the objection and the reply are unavoidably 
trifling. Almost equally trifling is the objection, 
that the two or three forming a church, may be 
" females," and then none may " speak." This 
objection, however, Mr, B. himself selves, as often 
as he asks for the mind of any of the female mem- 
bers in a church=meeting, in a case of discipline or 
otherwise. He allows, that women may speak in 
the church, if, by so doing, they do not usurp 
authority over the men. 

But- passing trifles, let us attend to the text. 
Christ says, " where too or three are assembled in 
my name, there am I in the midst of them." We 
plead on this ground Here are, 1st, The Head 
of the church catholic; and 2d, Some of the mem- 
bers; nothing higher can be attained by any society 
on earth. But, says Mr. B. " This text has no 
immediate respect to any society ; to any assembly 
that can justly be called a church;" but only to the 
two or three engaged in discipline, Letters, p. 54. 

In this assertion, he seems completely mistaken. 
The text seems to contain an allusion to one in the 



7 



Old Testament; at least it is equivalent: « Wherever 
I record my name, there will I come to you and bless 
you." In Mat. xviii. 20. the word c tvhere 9 is of the 
same meaning as « wherever;' and the text contains a 
most gracious and extensive promise, insuring the 
presence of Christ in every christian meeting, en- 
gaged in social worship, whether the society con- 
sist of thousands, or of two or three individuals; 
and whether the employment be discipline or any 
other duty. The promise is general, and from its 
generality, the application to the particular case of 
discipline is an inference. Our Lord speaks thus, 
" Wherever two or three are met in my name, there 
am I in the midst of them; therefore, be assured, 
that if two of you shall agree on earth, as touching 
any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for 
them by my Father who is in heaven." This 
promise suits ten thousand cases, but Mr, B. takes 
away all the precious parts of the promise but one. 
He makes some amends, however, by conceding, 
that the " spirit of the passage may be applica- 
ble to every lawful assembly of Christians," page 
54. This concession, in the mean time, destroys 
his argument, for if the two or three enjoy the 
spirit of the passage, i. e* the presence of Christ, it 
is all that is pleaded for from this text. 

But, besides, Mr. B.'s view of the text, labours 
under two other disadvantages; 1st, It would re- 
quire an interpolation, that it might express his 
view. It would require to be read, where two or 
three are met, in my name, (in a case of discipline ,) 
there am I in the midst of them. 2d, Even with 
this interpolation, instead of a reason or proof of 
what precedes, the words would only express a 
tautology, such as, " I will be with you in dis 
cipline; for, where two or three are met (in a case 
of discipline,) there am I in the midst of them." 
I hope Mr. J>, will see, that he has mistaken the 
sense of this text. 



In the following page, (55,) is another conces- 
sion, which overturns the assertion, that « No 
society can be a churchy unless organized by having 
office-bearers." " We read of the church in the 
house of such an one, and this church may have 
been < a christian family, termed a congregation." 
If so, then a « church" and a " congregation," are 
terms equivalent; and here we have scriptural 
example of a church which was not an organised 
society. But then this is not a church "properly 
so called." It seems rather bold, to allege that the 
scriptural use of a term is improper. If the scrip- 
tural use of the term do not suit our author's ideas 
of a church, it must be because these ideas do not 
agree to scriptural use of the term; and which 
ought to yield, is very evident. 

However, the question is now changed. It is 
now granted, that an unorganized society may be a 
churchy (which was before denied,) but it is not a 
church properly so called. Why.' Because not 
organized-. The conclusion of the reasoning through 
eight- pages then, is this: ct An unorganized society is 
not an organized church!" This position needed no 
proof. 

So much for v/hat a church is not. We are next 
informed what it is. 

Page 56. " It is a congregation of saints in 
Christ Jesus, with their bishops and deacons." But 
are societies not churches before they obtain these? 
Mr. B. seems to say they are not. Yet he grants 
it, that both bishops and deacons are chosen by the 
churches. Can churches act before they exist? 
But these churches, I suppose, were not w properly 
so called," in his estimation. 

We next meet a number of groundless charges 
in page 57, in which our author seems to have for- 
gotten what opponents he set out with, page 49. 
That they were such as plead for the privileges of 



9 



two or three, only « where more cannot be had" It is 
surely unjust, to charge such with « treating lightly 
the order of the house of God," — with " setting it 
entirely aside," — " cutting out pastors and teachers 
altogether." How can that be treated lightly which 
does not, and cannot, in the case in hand, exist? 
How can that be set aside, which in the case can 
have no being? How can pastors be cut out where 
they never could exist? — We pray in behalf of 
afflicted brethren, that God would make up to 
them the want of public ordinances. Do we thus 
wish that he would render such ordinances useless? 
We say,. €C He can, and frequently does, render 
adversity a blessing." Will Mr, B. charge us 
with holding that prosperity is not a blessing ? The 
charge would be equally reasonable with those 
made, page 57. 

We reckon the organization of a church a great 
blessing, where it can be obtained ; but where this 
cannot be obtained, we do not think the communi- 
cation of the Lord 3 s favour so confined to means^ 
that he cannot make his grace sufficient for two or 
three met in his name, and obeying his command- 
ments. To reply to all such accusations once for 
ali, I use the following argument : — 

If those who think and say, that a few believers 
met for worship, may observe the Lord's supper, 
without the presence of elders, when their presence 
cannot be obtained; — -if those are chargeable with 
setting aside the elder's office, the order of a 
church, &c. then Mr. B. is, without doubt, guilty 
of setting aside the eider's office, and the order of 
a church, in every other respect but that of the Lord's 
supper; for he says, that this is " the only ordi- 
nance which belongs exclusively to a church of 
Christ, as such," page 72. 

I have no doubt but that Mr. B. can fully clear 
himself of the charge of rendering the elder's office 



10 



useless in all parts of public worship, except the 
Lord's supper. But I am certain, he cannot clear 
himself in this way, without refuting his own 
charges against those whom he opposes in this 
place. 

In the same page, (57,^ Mr. B. founds an 
argument on the phrase, " the body of Christ." 
The argument is shortly this: — "A christian 
church is compared to an organized body, such as 
the human body, therefore, it must be an organized 
society." In support of this argument, reference 
is made to Eph. iv. 4 — 17. and 1 Cor. xii. 21 — 27. 
" The qualifications most essential to a church of 
Christ, are, being one body, animated by one spirit, 
having one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 
one God and Father of all, Sec. But the gifts 
which the Lord ascended on high to bestow, like- 
wise enter into the description of the body of 
Christ, and are necessary." 

On our author's reasonings on this phrase, « the 
body of Christ," I beg leave to remark, 

1. He mistakes the meaning of the phrase in 
these texts. It cannot be made appear, that it ever 
is applied to a single congregation as a fody, but 
only as consisting of members of the body, viz. the 
catholic church, " the whole church of the re- 
deemed." Paul says, " Ye are the body of Christ, 
and members in particular." In like manner, he 
says, ** We being many are one bread, and one 
body, for we all are partakers of that one bread." 
"When the apostle wrote these texts, he was not at 
Corinth, nor a member of the particular church 
there; yet he, by using the word iue in the latter 
text, evidently includes himself in the " one bread 
and one body." This shows, that the one body is 
to be understood of the catholic church. The 
phrase is to be understood in the same sense in the 
former text. The Corinthians were the " body of 



ii 



Christ/' in the same sense as they were " members 
in particular." The plain sense of the text is, 
Ye are the body of Christ, even members in par- 
ticular." Just so in the other text, the proof that 
Paul and the Corinthians were " one bread and 
one body," was, that they all participated in the 
same bread, viz. the symbol of the whole body of 
the redeemed. Agreeable to this view, we observe 
that the language is not « ye are a body of Christ," 
as Mr. B.'s view would seem to require, but " ye 
are the body of Christ." That is, ye consist of the 
same kind of materials of which the church univer- 
sal is constituted, being members of that body, and 
your mutual privileges and duties agree to this. 

2. Mr. B. argues from the organization of the 
body, celebrated in these texts: But that one 
body, the organization of which is celebrated by 
Paul, is that to which were given the apostles, 
prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, gifts of 
healing, &c. These attainments, perhaps, never 
belonged to any particular society, but to the church 
catholic, which is the " one body" But though it 
were proved, that a particular congregation were 
called " the body of Christ," in its associated 
capacity; unless its organization is the only reason 
why it is so designed, the argument will not be 
aided by the phrase. 

To seek a resemblance in every point, betwixt 
the figure and the reality, leads to a most visionary 
and delusive mode of explaining scripture. To 
such a mode, Mr. B. seems, in one instance, to 
lean too much, when he remarks, page 61, that the 
number of members specified by the apostle, 
1 Cor. xii. is greater than some would require to 
constitute a church. Were I to go to work in this 
way, I might insist, that the number of members 
in a church, must not be gr eater than the number 
of members specified by the apostle. Or, I might 



12 



demand of Mr. B. whether an elder be a hand or 
an eye $ whether a deacon be an ear or a foot. In- 
stead of inculcating that every particular church 
is that « one body," of which he is speaking, the 
apostle's great design, is to impress on the minds 
of Christians, that they all are members of a body 
which is but me, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, 
bond or free; whether they belong to one particular 
congregation, or to different congregations of saints. 
This numeral oneness? and identical sameness of the 
great body, are his chief ideas. These are the 
ideas on which he founds his arguments for mutual 
love, and mutual aid among believers. 

3. This author insists that these texts do include 
the organization of churches, and apply to them as 
organised. Of this I make no doubt. But this 
will not serve the purpose of his argument in the 
least, unless he can prove also, that unorganized 
societies united in the truth, love, and holiness of 
the gospel, and regularly meeting to worship God, 
have neither part nor lot in these texts. This cannot 
be proved; for believers, thus united, all have the one 
faith, hope, baptism, and Lord; are all actuated by 
the same spirit, and belong to the same body of the 
redeemed. They, are, therefore, competent to the 
duties and privileges of that connection. Tnei/ are 
bound to " keep the unity of the spirit in the bond 
of peace," because there is one body and one spirit. 
They are bound, when one member suffers, to 
sympathize with it, and if one member be honoured, 
to rejoice with it, &c. Now, if believers, in such 
circumstances, are competent to many of the things 
intended by this figure, who shall say that they are 
to be debarred from that ordinance which figures 
out their union to Christ and to his members? 

But it is asked, u are not pastors and teachers 
necessary? They are;- — and so were apostles and 
prophets; and so are the " feebler members." 



13 



But who would unchurch a society, on account of 
the absence of the one or the other? It would be 
equally unwarranted to unchurch a society on ac- 
count of the death or banishment of its pastor or 
pastors; or before it could obtain such office- 
bearers. Mr* B.'s mention of the " feebler mem- 
bers," p. 61, has undone the whole of his argument. 
Indeed, the idea of a church being an organized 
body, has so occupied our author's mind, that he 
sees it where it is not, and suspects opposition to it 
where none was intended. He says, " God hath 
set some in the church, « 1st, apostles, 2d, pro- 
phets, next teachers/ &c. thus organizing a Chris- 
tian assembly." But in what Christian assembly, 
on earth, did God set these to organize it? The 
church mentioned in the text, is the catholic 
church — the body of the redeemed. It might as 
well be said that he set in the church, " gifts of 
healing and tongues." Thus organizing a Christian 
assembly. None of such arguments will prove that 
an unorganized society, is not a Christian church. 
But though our author has failed in his proof of 
this point, we perfectly agree with him that « an 
organized society (as well as one unorganized) is a 
church;" and that every society ought to be thus 
organized, as soon as it is practicable. 

I observe, however, that I use the word, " unor- 
ganized," in our author's use of it. For a society 
of believers worshipping regularly together, and 
united on the truth, hope, and holiness, of the 
gospel; conducting discipline, edifying one another, 
and ministering to each other's necessities, cannot 
be reckoned unorganized, either in the view of 
reason, or in the sense of the texts in question. 
Neither is it proper to speak of such societies, as 
" in a disjointed state," p. 58. Or say, that God 
hath not set such members " in the body, as it hath 
pleased him," p. 60. Or, that they are " loose 



14 

stones," or " separate members" not « fitted to 
each other," p. 62. They are in the body, and, 
for the time, set as it hath pleased God. — They are 
not loose stones, and separate members, but fitted 
together and connected together by a bond, as much 
more excellent than the connection by office-bearers, 
as the end is more important than one of the means. 
They are connected " in the Lord," and in the 
" one body" of which he is the Head. To argue, 
as our author seems to do, that a society of Chris- 
tians, with a pastor or pastors, &c. are " in joint/* 
and, " set in the body as it pleased God;" and, 
" fitted to each other;" but that as soon as the 
pastor is removed by death, or misconduct, they 
get into a " disjointed state," become " loose stones" 
and i6 separate members," not " fitted to each 
other," is to give an excessive, and, indeed, an un- 
intelligible importance to office. This all seems to 
proceed from a mistaken view of the use of the 
phrase, " the body of Christ." 

To this phrase, Mr. B. ascribes two senses, p. 
62, 1st, « the whole church of the redeemed." 
2d, A visible representation of this by a company 
of believers, " as compacted and organized." I 
know not where this second sense originated. I 
suspect it was started by Mr. Glass, or some head 
of a sect. It has gained a currency. But I can- 
not find that it has any solid foundation in the 
word of God. The two senses of the phrase in 
that wvri are. 1st, The whole body of the re- 
deemed. 2d, Believers considered as members of 
that body, and as being the materials of which that 
body is constituted. In this latter sense, whenever 
we can say, " ye are members in particular," we 
can say also, " ye are the body of Christ." This 
sense of the phrase, will apply both to societies 
organized, (in our author's sense of that word) and 
to such as are net so organized. 



15 



In the conclusion of this Letter, our author seems 
half inclined to grant, that the societies at " An- 
tioch, Lystra," &c. might be a kind of churches 
before they obtained elders. He grants, that in 
each place might be a " congregation," containing 
the " materials of which God's building was (after- 
wards) formed." But, after this concession, he 
gets more severe on the idea of two or three being 
a church, and calls it a presumptuous opinion, &c 
But there will not easily be found any warrant for 
the one, which will not extend to the other also. 

Thus our author has equally failed in proving 
what a church is, as in showing what it is not. 

The 6th Letter of the collection, is employed to 
show, that " the Lord's supper is an ordinance 
peculiar to a christian church." That is, to such 
a society as our author denominates a church. It 
is sometimes needless to contend about the use of 
a word-, but it is not fair to infer, as Mr. B. has 
done here, a doubtful state of mind, when a person 
makes a supposition for argument's sake. The 
fact is, a Paster would grant that the Lord's supper 
is x church ordinance, if it be understood that a 
society of believers, without elders, may be a 
church; but if the term church be confined to a 
society having pastors and deacons, he denies that 
it is exclusively a church ordinance. Accordingly, 
he waives the debate about the sense of the term, 
as of little value in the question. 

After adverting to his opponents, Mr. B. states, 
1st, That the Lord's supper and baptism are sym- 
bolical observances. 2d, and 3d, That the former 
differs from baptism in being frequently observed, 
and in being not personal but social. 4th, That it 
is not, like other ordinances, such as exhortation, 
praise, and prayer, suitable -either to private observ- 
ance or public, but is merely a church ordinance, 
and is, in this respect, like no other ordinance. 
B 2 



10 



Of these arguments, only the last seems to bear on 
the point at issue, and is it the assertion of the 
point to be proved? It is supported by mere asser- 
tion from p. 72 — 74. 

The first thing like argument adduced on the 
subject, is in page 74. « All the examples of this 
ordinance recorded in the New Testament, took 
place in organized churches." The first is the 
example of our Lord and his apostles. On this I 
observe, 1st, That this example is not a rule, 
except in so far as it is imitable. And it is inimi- 
table in respect of its organization. We never can 
obtain, nor dare we imitate the Head of the church ; 
the Lord Jesus presiding in a church on earth. 
No pastor may personate the Lord, and say, « this 
is my body broken for you." Mr. B. himself 
limits the binding power of this example* He 
confines the observance to the first day of the 
week, and this case was on the sixth day of the 
week. He now requires too, the presence of all 
the disciples within reach, with pastors and deacons; 
but in this case, only the eleven were present with 
the Lord Jesus. 

2d, In this first example, there were present the 
Head of the church, and a number of the mem- 
bers. He has now promised his spiritual presence 
to a small society met in his name. This is a 
closer example of the original organization, than if 
it depended on office-bearers. 

3d, Christ gave this ordinance to his apostles, 
and commanded them, as his disciples, and on the 
common footing of the privileges of all his disciples, 
" Do this in remembrance of me;" and he did not 
limit the observance to an organized society. 

4th, The commandment of Christ, in this in- 
stance, without any example but that referred to in 
the commandment, is a sufficient rule. It was to 
this that the apostle directed the Corinthians, for 



17 



die correction of their abuses, 1 Cor. xi. 23, &zc. 
It was this which warranted the " breaking of 
bread," Acts ii. 

The second example quoted, is that of the church 
at Jerusalem, in which the apostles presided and 
acted as elders. Here two questions occur: 1st, 
Did the apostles preside at the Lord's supper? 2d, 
If they presided, did they act as apostles, or as 
ordinary elders? Neither of these questions can be 
satisfactorily answered-, and though the latter could 
be answered in the affirmative, that they acted as 
apostles, it would be of no use to Mr e B.'s argu- 
ment; for we cannot admit ordinary elders to act 
as substitutes, either for the Lord Jesus, or for his 
apostles. 

The third example alleged, is that of the Cor- 
inthians, 1 Cor. xi. When the apostle says, u I 
delivered unto you," some understand him as 
asserting, that he administered this ordinance to 
them. This meaning, the words do not bear; 
otherwise we must suppose, that the Lo r d Jesus 
dispensed the same ordinance to Paul. For that 
which he " delivered" to the Corinthians, was the 
same thing which he had « received of the Lord 
Jesus." This was not the Lord's supper itself, but 
the doctrine concerning it. It was the doctrine^ 
" That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he 
w T as betrayed, took bread/' &c. It is also argued, 
that these Corinthians, to whom this ordinance was 
delivered, were an organized church. If it be 
meant, that they were such a church at the time 
when this ordinance was first delivered to them, it 
is mere assertion without proof; it is also highly 
improbable. If this be not meant, it is to no pur- 
pose. Mr. B. alleges, that the apostle represents 
this church as « one body," with reference to the 
Lord's supper. This, in his sense of the phrase, 
I have disproved on Letter 5th. He changes the 
B 3 



18 



phrase, " one bread," or " the same bread/' into 
" one loaf," to suit his purpose; but this change 
of the translation seems both unnecessary and 
fanciful, and would lead to a rule, which I doubt 
if he himself observes, viz. that only " one loaf '^ 
should be used at the Lord's supper, however 
numerous the communicants. 

The fourth example, is that at Troas, in Acts xxi. 
7. Mr. B. has bound himself to prove, that this 
was an organized church at the time; but in this 
he fails. Instead of proof, he gives us ** it seems," 
and tells us, that his own mind " is convinced." 
His reasons are plausible, but do not amount to 
proof of his position. His position is, that " every* 
recorded instance of the Lord's supper, took place 
in an organized society." Indeed, this position 
cannot be proved; and though it could be proved, 
it would not be sufficient to limit the institution , 
which is general. 

Besides, there were, no doubt, many examples 
of the Lord's supper, which are not recorded ex- 
pressly. It is spoken of at Corinth, Jerusalem, 
and Troas, as an ordinary practice, and it must 
have been the same in several churches mentioned 
Acts xiv. 23. It is there stated s that Paul and 
Barnabas, at a second visit, ordained elders in these 
churches. Now, it would appear, that before 
these elders were ordained, these churches had 
the Lord's supper, because they had formerly be- 
lieved; and the apostles, of course, would teach 
them to observe all things, whatsoever Christ had 
commanded, according to their commission, Mat* 
xxviii. 18, 19. and among the rest of the com- 
mands, this one: " Do this in remembrance of 
me." 

Mr. B. complains, that we here take many things 
for granted, which we ought to prove, p. 78. This 
would be a just charge, perhaps, if we rested solejy 



19 



en such reasoning, for our warrant for the observ- 
ance of the Lord's supper. But we rest on the 
broad ground of unlimited institution, and use 
these arguments as concordant to the institution, 
and also in opposition to arbitrary limitations. But 
Mr. B. himself grants, p. 79, that the case might 
be, as we suppose, owing to the presence of " ex- 
traordinary" teachers. Now, he thus virtually 
adopts a principle, that " what churches might do, 
who had extraordinary teachers in them, is no rule 
to us in this case." This principle would have 
saved him all his pains, in proving that the churches 
at Corinth, Troas, &c were organized at all times 
when they observed this ordinance. It would also 
destroy the force of example from the apostolic 
churches altogether, as a guide to us; for extra- 
ordinary teachers descended as far down as the 
scriptural history of the churches descended. 

In Letter Tth, Mr. B. first attempts to prove his 
last general position: viz. " Presiding at the Lord's 
supper, is competent to none but the pastor. ;? 
That it is the pastor's province, where a pastor 
exists, and is present, I do not dispute; but that it 
is competent to none else, cannot, I think, be made 
out. Indeed, on this point, Mr. B- neither brings, 
nor attempts to bring, any proof, either by precept 
or example, from the New Testament. He says 
harsh things against his opponents, but does not 
refute their arguments. He urges, indeed, that as 
we argue against infant-baptism, by requiring an 
express rule, we ought to do so respecting the 
Lord's supper also, p. 83, 84. But on baptism, we 
do not reason from example alone. Had the insti- 
tution of baptism been equally applicable to infants 
as to believers, our arguments founded on example, 
would not have been advanced, or if advanced, 
would have been inconclusive. It is because ex- 
ample is alleged against precept, in the case of 



20 



baptism, that we show that no such example can 
be found. But the institution of the Lord's supper, 
does not limit it any more to organized societies, 
than to those which are not so organized, and, there- 
fore, the occurrence of the observance in the one 
sort of society, is no proof that it was not observed 
in the other, but rather the contrary. If the pre- 
cept alone caused organized societies to observe it, 
why not other societies ? 

The. only example offered by Mr. B. of a pastor 
presiding at the Lord's supper, (even if examples could 
prove the point,) is that of our Lord himself, at the 
first observance. This, we have already seen, is 
not conclusive on the point; for he acted in a 
character, and in circumstances quite peculiar; and 
can have no successor. To say, that because he 
who, as Lord and Head of his church, instituted an 
ordinance, therefore, none but pastors must preside 
at it, is most inconclusive reasoning. 

A chief argument seems to be couched in the 
names elders, overseers 5 presidents, p. 81. Another, 
seems involved in the terms pastor, feeder, or 
shepherd, where it is said, p. 79, that the apostles 
could administer the Lord's supper in any place, 
because they had a general commission to " feed 
Christ's sheep," to " feed his lambs." As the former 
terms, elder, overseer, &c. would prove equally 
against ordinary brethren, taking the lead publicly, 
in prayer, teaching, or exhortation, they prove too 
much, and so prove nothing. — To render the argu- 
ment from the word « pastor," and the term 
« feeding," of any use, it should be shown, that the 
expression " feeding," applies solely, or chiefly to pre- 
siding at the Lord's supper; and also, that " feeding" 
is so peculiar to the pastor* that none else may, in 
any degree, interfere with it. Now neither of these 
can be proved, but both are easily disproved. 



21 



In Acts xx. Paul's charge to the elders at Ephe- 
sus, contains this injunction, " feed, the church of 
God," &c. When we inquire what is meant by 
c « feeding," we do not find in the whole detail, any 
mention of presiding at the Lord's supper. This 
clearly proves, that such presiding is not the only 
nor principal thing meant by the term " feeding." 
The same remark occurs, in reading the apostle 
Peter's address to elders, 1 Peter, v. 2, &c. where 
he exhorts them to " feed the flock." On the con- 
trary, many things which Mr. B. himself will con- 
fess are competent, in a certain degree, to ordinary 
brethren, are included in the detailed accounts of 
*< feeding," Acts, xx. &c. — This proves our other 
point; for, as the term "feeding" confessedly includes 
matters competent to ordinary brethren, the appli- 
cation of that term, to the presiding at the Lord's 
supper, cannot exclude such from interfering with 
such exercise, 

Indeed, the principal idea intended by the terms 
" shepherd," and " feeding," as applied to churches, 
is that of « guidance," and " leading." This idea 
is beautifully detailed in the 23d Psalm, and in the 
account which the " good Shepherd" gives of his 
treatment of his flock, John, x. 3, &c. Now, 
keeping in view that pastors are " guides," or 
" leaders," to a society, on their journey through 
this world heavenward; and that they must guide, 
and lead, according to the directions given by the 
tSupreme Guide, which directions (though supposed 
to be better understood by the pastors than the or- 
dinary brethren) are accessible to all, and must be 
studied by all: keeping these ideas in view, though 
pastors, where such are enjoyed, are useful for all 
parts of guidance, and are a very important blessing, 
being, as they ought to be, " fit to teach," and " ex- 
amples" to the brethren; yet, if in holy providence, 
tJiese are wanting to a Christian society, great or 



22 



small, there is no good argument deducible, either 
from scripture or reason, to prove that such a so- 
ciety should stand still, and not proceed in its 
journey; every member attending to the directions 
of the Supreme Guide, the great Shepherd of souls \ 
and thus directing his own course, and contributing 
to the guidance of his brethren, both in their in- 
dividual and social capacity. This will be found 
the same with that " edification," to the promotion 
of which, all Christians are enjoined, and in which 
all ought to " seek to excel." To every part of 
this edification, pastors may be, and, if in their pro- 
per duty, will be of important benefit; but it is 
evident, they are not the only means of promoting 
it in any one department of its extent. 

Thus I have endeavoured to prove, that Mr. B/s 
reasons for limiting to organized societies* and to 
the presence of elders, the commandment of Christ, 
" Do this in remembrance of me/' are invalid, on 
various accounts. I have shown that he mistakes 
the sense of the text, 6S where two or three are 
gathered together in my name, there am I in the 
midst of them." That the phrase " the body of 
Christ," is not to be understood as he supposes ^ 
but may be understood in a sense to which a society 
without elders will agree: and that, though they were 
used as he alleges, they would not support his 
conclusion: — That his concessions overturn his 
whole scheme, so that he is obliged to take refuge in 
a principle which would render the examples of the 
apostolic churches inapplicable to our times. That 
his ideas derived from the official names of pastors 
are strained, incorrect, and inconclusive. 

On the whole, then, as Mr. B,'s commentary on 
the institution of the Lord's supper, is at variance 
with the text, and as his arguments in support of 
this commentary are insufficient: Christians will do 
well to hold by the text, and reject the commentary. 



£3 

It is to be observed too, that the command to the 
disciples of Christ in society, " do this in remem- 
brance of me" is not conditional, like the command 
to ordain elders. This latter command is suspended 
on the condition, u if any man be" so and so 
qualified. Hence the command to observe the Lord's 
supper, may be binding on a society, on which 
the command to ordain elders is not binding. 

But it is alleged, that the observance of the Lord's 
supper, without elders present, would have perni- 
cious consequences. Let us attend to these. 1st, 
« It would tend to scatter the sheep of Christ,* 
p. 85. In support of this idea, it is alleged, that 
" Christians are so lazy, that if they might com- 
municate in twos and threes, they would not think 
worth while to go the necessary distance, to meet 
with their brethren in larger meetings." Such is 
the idea. Now, this idea is contrary to reason and 
to fact. It supposes that men are not disposed to 
society, in preference to solitude. This is opposite 
to human nature. It supposes that the Lord's 
supper is the principal, if not the only exercise, for 
which Christians meet together, and s as it were, 
the only bond of their union. But Christians are 
bound to meet, and to edify one another in other 
ordinances besides this, and if they neglect their 
duty, they are proper objects of discipline 5 as cp- 
posers of the commandment of Christ, which enjoins 
that Christians should love each other, and benefit 
each other, as they have opportunity that they 
should not " forsake the assembling of themselves 
t e^ether." 

The second supposed consequence is, that (( new 
converts would remain in < twos' and « threes,' 
and not seek to combine into larger societies " — 
This supposition, is another instance of the want 
of attention to that social principle which actuates 
the whole human race, and causes them to prefer a 



24 



multitude to solitude, or to a few companions, pro- 
vided all other advantages are nearly alike. Besides, 
these new converts are supposed to be very unlike 
all those recorded in the New Testament. They 
prized each other's company, and were very eager 
to see each other's faces-, they longed much after 
each other to be satisfied with each other's company, 
and edified by the exercise of each other's gifts. A 
similar spirit is still discernible in new converts. 
They are the farthest of any from the disposition 
supposed; and from u forsaking or shunning the 
assembling of the saints," enjoined in scripture. 

3d . It is supposed that the practice would H open 
a door to the discontented and offenders, to get away 
from churches, to avoid confessing their sins." — 
Such offenders and discontented, will be off at any 
rate, and, unless they repent, their stay is not desir- 
able. Indeed, such as stay merely for the purpose 
of joining in the Lord's supper, had as well be gone. 

4th. Mr. B. supposes that the practice would 
" lessen the respectability of Christianity, and prevent 
its publicity." As to respectability, the world will 
see very little difference between the practice of 
every thing but the Lord's supper, and the practice 
of this as well as other observances. It will be 
equally easy to justify the latter case to the world, 
as the former. They will see as little respectability 
in plain illiterate men, pretending to expound the 
scripture or preach, as when they observe the Lord's 
supper. But the latter case must much more re- 
corn m«d itself to them on the score of consistency. 
If they look at all into the scriptural account of the 
qualifications of pastors, they cannot fail to see, that 
these are much more necessary in other depart- 
ments of social worship, than in this. Nor will the 
world be likely more shocked at one person giving 
to another, the symbols of the body and blood of 
the Lord, in a small society, than at the same prac- 



25 



tice in a large society. On the other hand, when 
a few Christians display all christian observances in 
their simplicity, they present the world with a more 
complete view of practical Christianity. This argu- 
ment about " respectability," however, is suspicious 
and delusive. What Mr. B. thinks respectable, 
others think contemptible, and if he accommodates 
to their taste, he must abandon primitive Chris^ 
tianity entirely. 

In deducing these consequences, our author has 
deserted the original question altogether. It re- 
spected the case of small societies, say two or three 
observing the Lord's supper, " when no more can be 
had" He, in these consequences, treats of the case 
of such as should do so " when many more, — when 
the fellowship of a whole church fully organized is at a in- 
able" Surely these are very different questions. 

In these suppositions of consequences, he has 
reasoned very partially. He chooses extreme cases, 
the very worst possible, and some of them scarcely 
supposable. On the other hand, many cases fairly 
belonging to the argument, and which are known 
facts, he entirely avoids. Thus, a missionary la- 
boured in India alone, for a number of years. At 
last, the Lord Jesus gave him two companions. 
The three agreed to observe the Lord's supper. 
According to Mr. B.'s principles, their conduct was 
opposite to both scriptural precept and example. 
Many cases somewhat similar might be mentioned. 
- — Cases in which, on his plan, the disciples cannot 
for many years, or perhaps _f or a lifetime, obev 
the commandments of Christ. Such, however, are 
not the cases on which he reasons, though they be 
facts. He rather dwells on cases which probnblv 
never did, and never will, occur. — Cases of small 
parties voluntarily formed, without any apparent 
reason. 



26 



The supposition of a divisive tendency in the prac- 
tice of communicating without elders, is supported 
by suppositions. The facts on the other side are 
important, and require serious attention. 

It is unnecessary to remind Mr. B. of some ami- 
able and useful members of christian churches, 
whom a rigid adherence to his principles, divided 
from their brethren. Of such, some being dead, 
yet speak; others remain still in a divided state. I 
need not inform him of a prosperous church now 
existing, the seed of which had nearly been divided 
from their brethren by these principles, and which 
was preserved in a state of union only by a relaxa- 
tion. I need scarcely inform him, that, at this 
moment, the same principles are the chief hindrance 
to the union of multitudes of dear brethren, w T ho 
belong to the « one body" of Christ ; who have the 
" same spirit , the same faith, the same hope, the same 
Lord, and the same baptism. Many would wish to 
unite, but cannot submit to a yoke which they con- 
sider as no better than " the commandments of 
men,"— as resting on no sounder basis than strained 
figures and texts misapplied. 

Thus, while Mr. B. advances a charge of w scat- 
tering the sheep of Christ," against the principles 
which he opposes, and supports his charge by mere 
suppositions, many of them quite improbable: facts 
and realities evince that his principles do, indeed, 
" scatter the sheep of Christ/' 

Were these principles founded on the word of 
God, all consequences must be endured; but if they 
rest on the mistaken views of men only, they ought 
net to be retained, even though their consequences 
were more harmless. 

My dear brother, I beg you to reflect that opinion 
on the point at issue, was, at the time Mr. B. wrote, 
professedly a matter of forbearance. Now, think 
whether his charges against it be congruous to the 



27 



nature of forbearance. — Consider that his principle 
rests, for the most of its proof, on verbal criticisms y 
applied to figurative expressions , such as " the body 
of Christ/' the " shepherd, — feeding," &c. and 
that this is a species of reasoning, neither proper 
nor necessary for plain Christians-, nor within their 
reach. Observe also, that those brethren who have 
been qualified to judge in matters of verbal criticism, 
have been, and are, in general, opposed to Mr. B. 
on this point. Let me entreat you to ponder these 
things seriously, and to keep in mind, that though 
groundless notions on the meaning of some texts, 
are, and must be, matters of forbearance among 
brethren, (as who is exempted from them,) yet if 
any attempt be made to bind the groundless notion 
as a yoke on the neck of believers, it becomes the 
duty of all Christians to refuse submission, and to 
set their faces against it. — So far, on Mr. B.'s rea- 
sonings on this subject. — 

It may be now proper to advert to a Review in 
the Christian Advocate, for September 1809. In 
this piece, the Reviewer, after setting at nought, 
in a great measure, his opponents, proceeds to sup- 
port the same points espoused by Mr. B. The 
defence of his opponents I leave to themselves. 

I shall not enter into any dispute with him, whether 
the term " church" is to be applied exclusively to 
an organized society; because I judge the decision 
of this point insignificant in the present controversy. 
Besides, this Reviewer seems unprepared to take 
either one side or the other. In page 61, he asserts 
" it is essential to a New Testament church, that it 
consist of an assembly of believers.— They must be 
competent to attend to the institutions of the gos- 
pel." In p. 62, he asserts, an assembly of believers, 
without elders, whatever their number be, have 
neither warrant nor authority to communicate in 
the Lord's supper. Now, if it be " essential" to & 
C 2 



28 

church to be competent to the institutions of the 
gospel, and if the Lord's supper be a gospel institution, 
and the presence of elders necessary to it; it seems 
evident that elders in a society, are essential to render 
that society a church. Yet we are told, p. 62, 63, 
that the existence of "churches in Crete without elders" 
is " a point that no one ever doubted." — Leaving these 
pages, to settle this difference at leisure, and our 
Reviewer to settle this " point, which no one ever 
doubted, with Mr. B.'s two long letters in opposition 
to it, I proceed to what is more important. 

Our Reviewer's 2d argument, or rather assertion, 
is, that « without elders no society may communi- 
cate in the Lord's supper." Thus he excludes from 
this ordinance, societies whose duty it is to " as- 
semble for the worship of God, and for mutual 
edification, and to call into exercise all those gifts 
-which the Head of the church has conferred," p. 
62-, but they are to abstain from " those institutions 
for which their imperfect state disqualifies them," 
such as the Lord's supper. Now, this is all mere 
assertion, the idea that this state disqualifies them 
for this ordinance, is not attempted to be proved. 
What gifts are necessary for the Lord's supper, 
besides those which qualify for the worship of God, 
and edification? Which of the parts of the pastor's 
character is necessary in one, and not in the other? 
Is it aptness to teach, or temperance, or gravity, or 
the absence of covetousness, or what? If it be 
answered, it is the office itself: I again ask, why is 
the office itself necessary? No better answer can 
be given, than " because the Lord's supper requires 
it." And for this, no better proof can be given, 
than that " the office is necessary to the ordinance." 
Thus, mere assertion is disguised, by ringing the 
changes on a set of words, and forming a circle. 

The Reviewer urges, that the opposite sentiment 
deduced, would lead to the idea that " two females 



29 



meeting together for christian worship, &c. ought 
to communicate in the ordinance of the supper." 
And why not? The Reviewer answers, " The 
proposition itself we affirm is highly absurd," p. 62. 
Why absurd? We affirm that is so. This is too 
like the fault charged by the same writer on another, 
p. 16. " Sic voky sic jubeo; stat mihi pro rations 
voluntas" 

This Reviewer's last argument is taken from the 
churches in Crete, mentioned Titus i. 5. in which 
certain things are asserted to have been " wanting," 
before they obtained elders. Had they observed 
the Lord's supper, he urges that nothing could have 
been " wanting-," therefore, as some things were 
wanting, the supper could not be enjoyed. " What 
could be wanting?" says he. " Here we take our 
stand." I answer, elders were wanting. I believe 
the meaning of the text is " to set in order the 
things that are wanting, even to ordain elders in 
every church." Neither this Reviewer nor any 
other, can deny that even is a translation equally just 
as and. But though the latter be retained, the word 
and, every one knows, is often used as illustrative. 
Thus, we read God and the Father," — The only 
Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ," &c. Now, 
if * and' may be understood in either of these senses, 
the sense in which our Reviewer understands it is 
not necessary, and so can prove nothing. Besides, 
other things might be wanting, deacons might be 
wanting, organization in our Reviewer's sense of 
it, was wanting; what else we know not, unless this 
writer or some other could inform us what things 
were " not wanting." 

This text can afford no argument to our Reviewer, 
unless it be the following, viz. " Some things were 
wanting in these churches of Crete." " Therefore, 
the Lord's supper was wanting." If it be here that 
our author " takes his stand;" we may set up 
C 3 



30 



against him an argument of exactly the same class 
and quality as his own, viz. " Some things were 
not wanting in these churches of Crete." — " There- 
fore the Lord's supper, was not wanting" Those 
two opposing arguments are so exactly balanced, 
that Aristotle himself would not have been able to 
give either a preference. — The latter argument, 
though it be worth nothing, will be able to stand 
over against our author and his argument, as long 
as the principles of reason exist, and to keep him 
aloof from the conclusion. 

It is remarkable, that our author takes his stand 
on this subject, at a text in which the Lord's supper 
is not mentioned. This is so like reasoning in 
favour of infant-baptism, from circumcision and 
marriage; or reasoning from the words, " ye have 
robbed me, saith the Lord," or those, "who drowned 
Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea, for his mercy 
endureth for ever," to prove the final salvation of 
the devil and his angels; that the very resort to 
such a text is suspicious, and tends to invalidate the 
doctrine thus defended. 

The Reviewer's treatment of Messrs. J. and 
Walker, especially of the latter, may probably engage 
him in an unequal contest. With this I ha-'e little 
concern. But had I his ear, I should admonish him 
against any such use of the scriptures, as he has 
made in his concluding reference to Korah, Dathan, 
and Abiram, Numb. xvi. This sort of Anathema^ is 
now quite stale. It has been so often used by 
Catholics against Protestants, by Protestants against 
Presbyterians, and by Presbyterians against Congre- 
gationalists, that this use of it has become like chil- 
dren's play. — It is K Brutum fulmen; ira sine vi, con- 
temptui pneris" But, when it is viewed as a profa- 
nation of the word and works of the Almighty, by 
misapplying a most solemn passage, even were the 
charge of " violent antipathy against official men," 



31 



a well founded accusation, the case becomes more 
serious. And if the charge be groundless, the 
abuse is greatly aggravated. 

Thus, dear brother, I think I have showed that 
this Reviewer's confidence greatly surpasses the 
solidity of his arguments. 

That he, and you, and I, and all the children of 
God, may increase more and more in the knowledge 
of the mind of Christ, and in that unity, which 
nothing but this knowledge can effect or improve, 
is the earnest prayer of, 

Dear Brother, 

Your's for the truth's sake, 

J. WATT. 



PECULIARITIES 

OF 

THE ELDER'S OFFIC& 

A 

Ecplg to £©r* OBrattstoootrg 

Charges, in Letters VIII. IX. and X. 



To the Same. 
Dear Brother, 

The controversy respecting " eating the Lord's 
supper without elders," has led to considerable 
discussion on the importance and the peculiarities 
of the elder's office. Mr. B. charges those whom 
he opposes, with rendering this office of no effect, 
and with denying all its peculiar business and 
characters. This they refuse, and state, on their 
side, in what these peculiarities do, and in what 
they do not consist. In Letters 8th and 9th, Mr. 
B. opposes, or seems to oppose, Mr. Balantine, and 
a Paper in a Magazine, subscribed a Pastor. In 
Letter 10th, he gives his own views of the 
peculiarities of the pastor's office. In reading these 
Letters, I cannot avoid being much impressed with 
the importance of understanding the meaning of a 
writer, to whom a reply is to be given. This 
would prevent much altercation, and greatly pro- 
mote christian unity. 



34 



If we keep in view what our author truly asserts, 
p. 115, that it is in that organized society which 
he terms a " church" and there " only," that " we 
can compare the authority of a private brother with 
that of an elder and keep in view also, that those 
whom he opposes, are pleading what private breth- 
ren may do in a society which is not such a church, 
and where, accordingly, the authority and powers 
of elders cannot be compared with theirs: if these 
two ideas be kept in view, it will be very credible, 
that there may be, after all, very little difference 
of sentiment on this subject, between Mr. B. and 
those whom he seems so strenuously to oppose. 

It is exceedingly evident, that he does not under- 
stand the following quotation from Mr. Balantine, 
which he undertakes to refute, and, hence, that his 
arguments do not tend to refute this quotation, but 
are directed against certain views which do not 
exist, except in his own supposition. Mr. Balan- 
tine writes thus: 

If Neither the imposition of hands, nor appoint- 
ment by a presbytery, confers on the person ap- 
pointed, either a power to do something he could 
not do before, or an indelible character or office. 
Appointment, however, is the avowed declaration 
and solemn ratification of a new relation formed 
and constituted, which did not formerly exist, be- 
tween the person so appointed, and the church 
over which he is to preside. There is now a rela- 
tion between Teacher and taught, Ruler and ruled. 
But the appointment confers no power of adminis- 
tering ordinances, as it is called, nor adds any gift. 
There was not an ordinance of God, but he could 
have presided at, or did preside at, before, as well 
after, his appointment. The power of administer- 
ing any ordinance, must be in the gifts and qualifi- 
cations conferred on some, by the Head of the 
church, to that end. The exercise of that power 



3J 

at any time, must arise from the desire of the 
church that it should be so; and the stated exer- 
cise of such power is conferred, by the church 
choosing and appointing to the elder's office. " — 
Balantine's Treatise, p. .94. 

Mr. B. says, p. 100, that this paragraph contra- 
dicts " Mr. Balantine's own sentiments, and the 
doctrine of scripture on the subject, and is incon- 
sistent with itself." I shall examine this charge, 
and the arguments adduced to support it. 

It is evident, that Mr. Balantine uses the terms 
power and gift, in this paragraph, not in reference 
to authority , but in reference to " qualifications " or 
talents " conferred by the Head of the church." 
This he states very clearly in the paragraph itself. 
Mr. B. asserts the same thing, p. 108, " By power 
he (Mr. Balantine) does not mean right or tit/e 9 but 
qualification or fitness" But though, in p. 108, the 
paragraph is so clearly understood, the case seems 
otherwise here. Mr. Balantine asserts a few un- 
doubted truths, and which Mr. B. himself will not 
dispute. But, on this very account, he is, in one 
place, charged with breach of candour, and " im- 
puting to his opponents sentiments which he knows 
they do not entertain," p ? 101, (a charge which seems 
quite unfounded,) and he is commended, p. 104, for 
asserting Mr. B.'s " own sentiments." 

Again, Mr. B. says, that Mr. Balantine avows 
the matter of difference in the plainest terms, when 
he says, that ordination 16 does not confer on the 
person appointed, a power to do something which 
he could not do before. This, says Mr. B. p. 101, 
is " the ground=work of all the present errors re- 
specting the Lord's supper and the elder's office." 
Now, into this obnoxious sentence, this ground- 
work of errors, let us insert, instead of " power," 
" ability" or « fitness," which is the real meaning 
of the term in this place, and it will be most indis- 



36 



putable. It is because the person ordained, is sup- 
posed previously to possess the power or ability to 
preside in the observance of ordn ances, that he is 
ordained to office-, so true is it, that ordination does 
not confer on him this power. 

As it is clear then, that Mr. B. has misunder- 
stood Mi*. Balantine, it is not necessary to follow 
him through his attempt. 

He treats Mr. Balantine all along, as if by power 
he meant " right" or « title," though he himself 
asserts afterwards, that this is not its meaning. 
This is surely imputing to opponents, what he 
might know they do not hold. Thus, he says, 
" Has the president of a popular society, no more 
concern in keeping order, than he had when he was 
only a private member," p. 102. Again he asserts^ 
« No man can lawfully exercise the authority of 
the elder's office, till he be an elder," ih. Such is 
a sample of this misapplied reasoning through 
pages 102, 103, and 104, 

At the foot of p. 104, Mr. Balantine is charged 
with teaching, that a private individual may do all 
that* pertains to an elder. This charge is not well 
founded, for stated Presiding is what pertains to an 
elder, and Mr. Balantine never ascribes this to a 
private individual. Respecting occasional presiding, 
there need be no dispute, for Mr. B. himself as- 
serts, p. 105, " Wherever a few believers meet 
together, they ought to observe the ordinances of 
Christ, and one of them must preside" He, how- 
ever, concludes this Letter by asserting, that such 
occasional presiding must not extend to the Lord's 
supper. Instead of assertion, proof of this point 
was needed, but this is not offered. It is urged, 
indeed, that where " organization does not exists 
there must be a want of those privileges which are 
.peculiar to organized bodies of Christians," p. 106. 
True; but still it remains to be proved, that the 



37 



Lord's supper is one of those peculiar privileged. 
It is unfair to assume the point to be proved, and 
then to proceed as if it were established. Of this 
various examples occur. 

Thus it appears, that the paragraph from Mr. 
Balantine, which Mr. B. charges, p. 100, with 
contradicting the scriptures, Mr. Balantine's own 
sentiments, and even itself; appears to be both true 
and consistent, and the objections to it to be irre- 
levant, being founded on a mistake of its meaning. 
I have, however, nothing to do with other parts of 
Mr. Balantine's performance, and, indeed, am not 
sufficiently acquainted with it, either to approve or 
blame. 

In Letter 9th, Mr. B. proceeds to oppose a Pastor 
on the same subject, by quoting and controverting 
the following paragraph. " Even thos-e things, on 
account of which the elder is called < pastor, 5 are 
not exclusive to him, but may be performed, in some 
degree, by ordinary brethren. The peculiarity of 
the pastor's work does not consist in the kind of 
employment in which he engages, but in the degree. 
If he is to teach the brethren, and admonish them, and 
comfort them; private brethren are bound to have 
the word of Christ dwelling richly in them, teaching 
and admonishing one another, — to comfort one another, 
to speak the truth in love, &c. If the pastor is to 
exercise authority, it must be by stating the mind 
of Christ, and requiring obedience to Him, and from 
this brethren are not excluded. It is in reference 
to such rule, that all are commanded to be subject 
i one to another? A private brother too, can enforce 
his commands, by the same kind of sanction as a 
pastor. He can refuse christian fellowship to such 
as will not obey the commandments of Christ." 

Now, it seems proper to observe, that this para- 
graph is presented by Mr. B. out cf its connection. 
It was never intended to exhibit the writer's view of 

D 



38 



the elder's office entire, but only some incidental 
views of it in a few departments. In its connection, 
the paragraph stood thus: The term, pastor or 
feeder, applied to elders, is no proof that none else 
may preside at the Lord's supper, for it is not 
chiefly on account of presiding at this ordinance, 
that the elder is called pastor.- — Besides, " even 
those things on account of which the elder is 
called pastor, are not exclusive to him," &c. 
Mr. B. does not even attempt to meet this argu- 
ment in its connection, but takes it out of con- 
nection, and, accordingly, misunderstands and mis- 
applies it. 

In its connection, the paragraph contains a few 
positions, which seem not easily disproved. To 
disprove them, it will be necessary either to prove 
that teachings admonishing, comforting, and rulings are 
not the things on account of which the elder is 
called pastor or feeder; or, that private brethren are 
excluded from teaching, admonishing, and comforting, 
each other, and from ail concern in rule. To deny 
either of these, even Mr. B. will net attempt. If 
so, the conclusion seems inevitable. 

He, however, attempts, p. 109, to show, that a 
Pastor confounds the distinction of Ruler and 
ruled, Teacher and taught, by alleging, that " the 
peculiarity of the pastors work does not consist in 
the kind of employment, but in the degree." Now, 
whatever may be the consequence of this assertion, 
if teaching be the same kind of employment as 
teaching; if ruling be the same kind of exercise as 
rulings &c. this assertion is undoubtedly true. 
Farther, as there is a peculiarity of degree ascribed 
to the elder, the distinction is not confounded. In 
common life, men are sufficiently distinguished in 
this way. Thus, one person is called a traveller , 
another a sailor, another a writer, another a messen- 
ger, &c. though others are not excluded from 



4J 



it. As little can he deny, that a private brother can 
refuse christian fellowship, to incorrigible sinners, 
or even churches, by withdrawing from them. Now 
if he cannot deny any of those things, he cannot 
refuse the truth of the paragraph in question. His 
distinctions of teaching, ruling, &c. into official and 
non-official, authoritative and non-authoritative, 
are of a different consideration. Nor do they alter 
the state of the question, if we are allowed non~ 
official^ non-authoritative, and occasional, teaching and 
ruling, there is no good argument against non-official 
or occasional presiding at the Lord's supper. 

I now come to a more pleasant part of my en- 
gagement, not to repel charges founded on misap- 
prehension, but to consider some of Mr, B.'s state- 
ments to which I can agree. He mentions, 

1. The qualifications of elders, p. 117. They 
must be " apt to teach" both for " edifying the body, 
and preaching the gospel to the world, and convinc- 
ing gainsayers." This is true, at same time, other 
brethren may have these characters, and if he who is 
chosen elder, had them not previously, it was wrong 
to choose him to office. The distinction here is, 
that whilst othera may have these talents, and may be 
without them, the person chosen must have them. 
The same is true of hlamelessness, ruling his own 
house well, and not a novice. Why Mr. B. calls this 
last a distinguishing character, I know not. He 
will surely grant, that a private brother, as well as 
an elder, may be " not a novice." The distinction 
is, that an elder must be " not a novice." 

I agree also, that the office is of great benefit and 
importance. It is useful, that churches be statedly 
taught by such as are « apt to teach; that they be 
statedly ruled by such as are fit to rule; that they 
be statedly called to copy the example of such as pre 
fit to be examples to the believers in word, in doc- 
trine, in conversation, in faith, in charity. It is of 



46 

great moment, that a specific work be allotted to one 
person, even though all were equally qualified; be- 
cause what is equally the business of all, is apt to 
be neglected ; but it is of still greater moment, that 
such work be in the hands best qualified for it. 

In order that a number of persons act together 
in a body, it is necessary that some lead, and such 
leaders are of great utility, even though no better 
qualified than the rest. Such is the case in civil 
affairs, and in military affairs; and such is the case 
in christian society. Mr. B. says, "one must preside" 
It is of higher importance, that one statedly preside, 
and that he who does so, be of the best qualified. 
Yet such are not exclusively possessed of the char- 
acters, said to be distinguishing. Instead of that, 
there is not one of the qualifications required in an 
elder, from which any private brother is excluded. 
Every one of them would be, in such a brother, 
desirable. 

. 2. The designations are considered; « eiders, pas- 
tors, teachers, overseers, angels, those who have 
rule." I agree, that the peculiarity of the elder's 
office, is expressed by these names. But when we 
examine the nature of this peculiarity, it will appear 
to consist not in exclusive possession, but in eminence y 
in that which is the reason of each name. 

Elders are such as excel others in age, wisdom, 
and experience. 

Pastors are such as are more eminent in feeding) 
U e. in instructing, comforting, guiding, leading, &c. 
than others, being set apart to stated employment 
in that service. 

Teachers are such as make a business of teaching 
others, and are distinguished thus from their breth- 
ren who are only occasionally employed. 

Overseers have an eminent charge in watching for 
the souls of church-members; in observing the con- 
duct of the whole, and warning against danger. It 



4} 

In p. Ill, Mr. B. makes a very wild supposition, 
viz. That in a church containing one hundred mate 
members, the whole one hundred may combine 
their authority, and overturn the pastor's authority, 
if it be of the same kind, and differ only in degree. 
The thing is possible. It is equally possible that the 
whole one hundred may, in one and the same in- 
stant, fall into epilepsy, but the one supposition 
outrages probability nearly as much as the other. 
But granting that these one hundred have just 
what authority they have, and what Mr. B. in his 
church allows them, and that the pastor's power is 
different in kind as well as degree; let us make the 
same supposition, viz. that the whole one hundred, 
being all the males, agree in opposing the pastor's 
exercise of power, in some one case. I ask, of 
what use would his power be? Every rational man 
must agree, that if one hundred thought one way, 
and only one or two another, that the probability 
was in favour of the majority. Iii such a case, no 
pastor could controul, nor ought to controul, a 
church. Thus, Mr. B.'s own plan is equally ex- 
posed to this evil, as that plan which he opposes. 

Indeed, Mr. B. himself states the sentiments 
which he seems so strenuously to oppose, in lan- 
guage as pointed as I could wish. He says, p. 121, 
H Churches may be obliged, by a principle of con- 
science, to dissent from the judgment of their 
elders." I ask, in that case, whether is the judg- 
ment of the church or of the elders to be followed? 
Whether do the elders or the church rule? He says 
again, p. 122, " Without the concurrence and sup- 
port of their brethren in the churches, it is not in 
the power of man to rule." This is just what a 
Pastor is pleading. Surely the necessity of concur- 
rence and support m rule, infers some kind of par- 
ticipation in that rule. There seems, indeed, to be 
no practical difference of sentiment between Mt. 13. 
D 3 



and a Pastor. This will more fully appear in the 
sequel. 

He makes an unjust imputation, however, when 
he says, p. 113, that a Pastor reckons the " exercise 
of authority the prerogative of all the brethren.'* 
The phrase « prerogative of all the brethren," is 
absurd, and subversive of itself. What is prerogative, 
cannot belong to all. A Pastor has ascribed pre- 
rogative, on the contrary, to the elder, when he says, 
tc the peculiarity of his work, consists in the degree 
of employment.? — He advances a similar unjust 
charge, when he represents his opponent as giving 
the "peculiar respect to persons young and unex- 
perienced," which belongs to elders. The peculiarity 
of respect given to elders, is that peculiar degree of 
it, which is given on account of their age, experi- 
ence, or office. Indeed,, to speak of different kinds 
of respect, in opposition to different degrees, is to 
me, quite unintelligible. 

A Pastor had said, as above quoted, that brethren 
have mutually, a certain degree of rule and author- 
ity over each other, and, to prove this, had quoted 
the text " be ye all subject one to another," because 
subjection cannot exist unless there be rule. Mr. 
B. will nave i t, that this is ascribing to brethren, a 
right to claim a portion of what belongs to elders. 
This is another unfounded charge, Elders have 
what belongs to them still entire; but we are here 
taught, that a certain degree of rule belongs to pri- 
vate brethren. Here he also considers the inference 
of a right to exercise rule 3 from a precept enjoining 
ji:b : tctio?ij as a " wonderfully" extravagant idea. The 
inference, however, is just as obvious, when we 
attend to the meaning of the terms, as if one should 
assert that A is richer than B, because B is poorer 
than A. Would Mr B, disprove the position that 
a man's one leg is longer than the other, by proving 
ifrstf he has one leg shorter than the ether? That 



43 



Christians are on equal footing, is no objection to 
this subjection and rule; but is the very reason that 
both are competent to all. The same is the case in 
every voluntary society, and without it, no such 
society could exist. Now, though this rule and 
subjection, are in less degree than the rule and sub- 
jection of the elder's office; yet still, rule is the same 
thing as rule, and subjection is subjection; and that 
"mutual" subjection should be allowed among breth- 
ren, as Mr. B. does, p. 114, and " right to exercise 
rule or authority, in any case," denied, as he does, 
p. 115, must proceed from inattention to the 
meaning of words. The charge of perverting this 
text to support the claims of pride, proceeds from 
the same cause, for every person who tells his 
brother his fault, and calls him to repentance, does 
most certainly exercise over him rule and authority, 
and instead of thus feeding pride, often exercises 
the most painful se!f=deniaL 

To contradict a Pastors position? that " a private 
brother can enforce obedience to the commands of 
Christ, by the same kind of sanction as an elder, 
k e. by refusing christian fellowship, in case of 
disobedience," Mr. B. says, f< in a church, neither 
can do so without the consent of the whole body,'' 
p. 115. He thus grants that both may do so, with 
" the consent of the whole body," and thus con- 
firms what he set out to contradict, biz. that 
" the one can enforce obedience by the same kind of 
sanction as the other" — -But farther, this can be done 
without the consent of the whole body. The body 
itself may be corrupt, and incorrigible-, and it may 
be a private brother's duty to withdraw, and thus 
refuse christian fellowship; or, in a situation where 
an organized church does not exist, he may, cn the 
same ground, refuse christian fellowship, and thus 
employ the same kind of sanction which an eider 
employs in a church, and with its concurrence. 



44 



What Mr. B. says of " threats of excommunica- 
tion," &c. p. 115, proceeds upon a misconception, 
and requires no reply. 

Upon " teaching" Mr. B. grants, that private 
Christians may teach "privately" p. Ill, and pub- 
licly, by " speaking the truth in love," p. 112, but 
not so as to invade the " elder's office," i. e. not 
" officially or authoritatively," p. 113. Here he 
grants all that a Pastor could wish, the question 
was not about teaching as an elder, or officially , but 
respected teaching itself. There may, however, be 
a question, whether the reason of the name teacher, 
given to the pastor, lie in the exercise of teachings 
and the degree of employment in it, or in the cir- 
cumstance of its being official and authoritative, 
whatever our author may mean by his use of these 
terms. But on this question, so easily decided, I 
have no occasion to enter. If we abstract from 
sounds, and attend to things, the difference between 
Mr. B. and a Pastor, will be of small moment; 
but, as the former has conceived it to be enormous, 
and, on this idea, has advanced some severe charges, 
it was necessary to invalidate these charges, by re- 
moving the foundations on which they rested. 
This, I hope, will have a tendency to promote 
christian unity and peace. 

If Mr. B. attends to the meaning of the paragraph 
in question, I do not think he will attempt to con- 
trovert it. He will not say surely, that teaching, 
admonishing^ comforting, and ruling, are not among 
the things on account of which the elder is denom- 
inated 'pastor.' He will not deny, that private breth- 
ren are enjoined to teach, admonish, and comfort one 
another. He will not deny, that the pastor must 
rule by stating to his brethren the mind of Christ, 
and requiring obedience to his commands. Nor 
will he deny, that a private brother may state to his 
brother, a command of Christ, and call him to obey 



39 



travelling, sailing, writing, carrying messages, &c. 
Indeed, most names of office produce their distin- 
guishing effect, on this principle. This is evidently 
the case with apostles and deacons, and with pastors. 
An apostle is literally a person sent out- a deacon is a 
servant. But on account of the eminence of the 
message and of the service, the names become ap- 
propriate and on account of the degree of employ- 
ment, one is, rather than another, called a pastor, 
even in a literal sense. 

In the above paragraph, a Pastor has considered 
the employment of an elder in his office, as dis- 
tinguished into several hinds, such as teaching, ruling, 
admonishing, &c. To refute what is advanced, 
fairly, Mr. B. ought to have abode by this division y 
but, instead of that, he has proceeded to subdi- 
vision, and to speak of the different hinds in each 
of these. Thus, he speaks of different kinds of 
rule, as that of a " father," a " magistrate," &c. 
This cannot be admitted as valid refutation. If 
Mr. B. were writing of the tribes of mankind as 
different kinds, and should mention the Africans as 
one kind, the Asiatics as another, the Europeans as a 
third, and the Americans as a fourth; what would 
he think of a reasoner, who should attempt to 
refute him, by distinguishing each of these classes 
into its various subdivisions? Yet the reasoning is 
too like his own, when he gives, as a refutation of 
the position, that teaching is one kind of exercise, 
and ruling another, an account of the different 
kinds of ruling and teaching. His reply, then, can- 
not be a refutation, because it does not bear on the 
same subject as the statement. 

To refute him, on these principles, Mr. B. com- 
pares the views of a Pastor, to saying, that " the 
sons in a family are all fathers in a less degree, 7 ' 
or, that ff private citizens are all magistrates in a 
less decree," " that every brother mav exercise 
D2" 



40 



pastoral authority in some degree," p. 110. Now, 
on this I observe, first, that Mr. B. takes some of 
his own ideas, and some of those of his opponents, 
ajid makes up, by combining them, an absurd sen- 
tence, and then exposes it. It is he, and not a 
Pastor, who calls the rule which a private brother 
may exercise, "pastoral authority." Instead of this 
sentiment, his opponents hold, that the authority 
is not pastoral, till it be above the degree competent 
to a private brother. Here, then, Mr. B. has been 
refuting his own supposition. 

Secondly, I observe, that his comparisons are 
commenced at the wrong end. It would suit very 
well, to compare the authority of a father with that 
of a pastor, if pastors existed and possessed authority 
previous to the existence of churches. But since 
the reverse is true, and since we must call no man 
father on earth, it is better to compare the authority 
of an elder in a church, to that of an elder brother 
in a family, where the father is absent. Thus it 
will be evidently of the same kind, with that pos- 
sessed by the younger brethren, but greater in 
degree. 

On the power of a magistrate too, it is to be ob- 
served, that this is just the power which all the 
members of the society possessed previously, com- 
bined, and lodged in the hand of the magistrate. 
And it is by, and with, the concurrence of the com- 
munity, that he continues to exercise this power. 
I am now speaking, not concerning right, but fact. 
In both these cases, therefore, the differences of 
rule and authority, are rather in degree than in kind. 
Indeed, it is not easy to see how rule and authority 
can differ from rule and authority^ exercised about 
the same things, except it be in degree. The dif- 
ferent kinds of authority will be just different de- 
grees, and the dispute will appear idle. 



47 



is of high importance, that such as excel in discern- 
ment, steadiness, and vigilance, be statedly thus 
exercised. In this, the elder is an example to the 
believers, and they also must look diligently after 
each other, and each be his brother's keeper. 

Angels or messengers of the churches^ says Mr. B. 
p. 120, " because they present the supplications of 
the churches to God in the public prayers." It 
must be because they are eminent in this*, for private 
brethren also pray as the mouths of the churches. 

Rulers are so called, because they take the lead in 
matters of rule; not because they only, or inde- 
pendently, possess power or authority. They are 
the executors of the churches' authority, and they 
do this in presence of, and as accountable to, the 
churches. Thus, pastors have power, but there are 
above them two degrees of power, to which, in 
cases of competition, the pastor's power must yield. 
There is, first, the authority of the Lord Jesus 
Christ. In opposition to this, no pastor's opinion, 
or command, is of force. Second, the authority of 
the church. There is, therefore, room to appeal 
from the authority of the pastor to a higher tri- 
bunal, u e. to the church, and from both pastor 
and church, to the word of God. And when any 
resists him, the pastor can make the same appeals. 

Thus, then, eminence in the particular depart- 
ments, forms the reason of the different official 
names of pastors. 

This eminence in the necessary qualifications, 
and the setting persons apart to that in which they 
are thus eminent, is of great advantage. It greatly 
facilitates any business carried on by a number of 
persons, that each person know, and promptly 
apply himself to his own department. This pre- 
vents neglect, doubt, and hesitancy. But when 
not only, every one has his own department, but 
every one occupies statedly that department, for 



48 



which he is best fitted, the advantage is unspeak- 
ably increased. This benefit, organized societies 
enjoy, and unorganized societies want. 

It is on account of these benefits, that the pastors 
of churches are entitled to those relative duties, 
which the brethren owe them, and which M. B. 
enumerates, p. 122, and seq. viz. 

Honour for their work's sake, on which account this 
honour is commanded by God, and which is recog- 
nised in his command, as the reason of the honour. — 
Because they « labour," are " over" others, " ad- 
monish" them, « labour in word and doctrine," 
and " rule well." 

Temporal support, both as a part of the honour 
above mentioned, as a just reward of the labour 
which is the foundation of this honour, and as an 
aid to enable them to apply themselves statedly to 
the duties of their office ; to their own comfort, the 
benefit of the churches, and the furtherance of that 
good work, to which they are set apart. 

Subjection to their authority is, as Mr. B. justly 
says, implied in the names which pastors bear, and 
is expressly enjoined in various places of the word 
of God. It also natively results from that temper 
of mind, which ought tG characterize the children 
of God. A church has agreed to be governed by 
the laws of Christ. It has, according to the com- 
mandment of God, chosen such of its own number 
as best understand these laws, and are otherwise 
best fitted for taking care that they be obeyed, and has 
set them apart in a special manner for this purpose. 
These persons, then, are vested with the church's 
authority, and that by the authority of the Head of 
the church. Such, therefore, as resist their au- 
thority, when they are acting according to these 
laws, resist the church's authority and the ordi- 
nance of God. At same time, as elders in ruling, 
may possibly, by mistake or otherwise, act in op- 



49 



position to the command of Christ, or may be 
thought by a brother so to act, it may be his right 
to appeal to the church, or, in case of his refusal to 
obey, the elder may so appeal. Then the church is, 
in the particular case, to resume its authority, and 
to judge faithfully between brother and brother, 
though one of these may be an elder. 

Thus, I agree, that elders are distinguished from 
their brethren, by the duties of their office, and the 
respect due to them, on account of these duties. 
But this is the case, not because these duties are 
exclusively set apart to them, but because they are 
especially^ and by way of eminence^ set apart to those 
duties, and to honour and respect for this work's 
sake. 

On the whole, it appears that Mr. B.'s charges 
against Mr. Balantine and others, are founded on a 
mistake of their meaning. And that, in all practical 
respects, the views of both parties on the nature, 
importance, and peculiarities, of the pastors' office, 
where such exist, are little, if at all different. But 
nothing that he has advanced, seems sufficient to 
prohibit the use of the Lord's supper, in cases 
where elders do not exist. 

That increase of true light may cause the differ- 
ences among Christians to disappear, is the earnest 
prayer of, 

Dear Brother, 

Yours, &c. 



J. WATT. 



ON THE DISPLAY OF 



SEPARATION FROM THE WORLD, 

IN 

Christian Worshipping Societies: 

strictures? on £©r- ^ratDlBOOD^ 

LETTERS ON CHURCH ORDER, 
Letter IV. 



To the Same. 

Dear Brother, 

In the first three Letters of Mr. B. J s collection, 
I see little to blame, and much to praise. In the 
fourth, in opposing Philaiethes, and Mr. Walker of 
Dublin, the author does not seem to treat the latter 
with due candour and fairness. Now, though I 
practically agree with Mr. B. and dissent from 
Mr. W. on the points at issue, I must enter my 
protest against misrepresentation, as calculated not 
to heal but to widen the breaches among real 
Christians, and to harden them mutually against 
conviction. 

Mr. W.'s sentiments are plain and simple. He 
teaches that no unbeliever does, or can worship the 
true God, and that none but a believer has any 
access to Him, or acceptance with Him. That 
the " sacrifice of the wicked/' (i. e. the prayers^ 
E 2 



52 



praises, and all parts of the professed worship of 
unbelievers,) "is an abomination to the Lord/'- — that, 
therefore, believers cannot join with unbelievers in 
any part of social worship, — that they are expressly 
forbidden to do so in such texts as, M touch not 
the unclean thing," &c. 

With respect to those whom he reckons be- 
lievers, but who, through ignorance or prejudice, 
are not following out the plan of religious conduct 
laid down in the New Testament, he teaches, that 
those who are following out this plan, are bound to 
refuse to join with them in social worship, on another 
principle; in order to keep their attention awake to 
the sinfulness of their conduct, and to reclaim 
them. In the mean time, he demonstrates all 
christian love to them, as erring brethren; by ad- 
monishing them, by hearing patiently their objec- 
tions, and answering them; by exhorting them 
to meet together and to discuss their differences, 
in order that they may be removed; and that the 
sincere disciples of Christ may be all " one," as 
Christ is " in the Father, and the Father in him." 
That thus, their own edification may be promoted, 
and that " the world may believe." In this treat- 
ment of those whom he considers real Christians, 
he thinks himself warranted by such texts as, 
" Withdraw from every brother that walketh dis- 
orderly, and not according to the tradition received 
from us (the apostles). — Mark such a man, and 
hold no fellowship with him, that he may be 
ashamed. Howbeit, reckon him not an enemy, 
but admonish him as a brother." 

To carry these sentiments into effect, he, and 
those of his views, preserve the same kind of visible 
distinction between those whom they receive into 
rheir fellowship, and others who may be present, 
in all the parts of social worship, which others 
make in the observance of the Lord's supper* 



This, they teach, is only acting consistently and 
candidly. And they carry the same principles 
into all other instances of social worship, as well as 
into those practised by the church. This visible 
separation in all acts of social worship, is the means 
thought, by them, necessary, for keeping the church 
pure ; for exhibiting to the world, the union of the 
members of the church among themselves, and 
their separation from the world; and for convinc- 
ing unbelievers of their exclusion from all access 
to please God in any degree, or to enjoy his favour, 
as long as they remain in a state of unbelief. The 
end is confessedly good. Perhaps, the means are 
not absolutely necessary, and to insist on these 
means, as ordinances of Christ, is, perhaps, making 
a law where He has made none. Mr, B. however, 
finds the plan pregnant with other abuse and danger, 
He charges Mr. W. or which is the same, Phila- 
lethes, (for he treats the latter as adopting the 
system of the former,) with " treating all such as 
are not in the fellowship of his church, i as unbe- 
lievers in all respects," p. 31, 32. One reflection 
on Mr. W.'s sentiments, as stated above, repels 
this charge. He is not more pointed in withdraw- 
ing from disorderly brethren, than he is faithful 
and affectionate in " admonishing them as brethren," 
and in receiving similar admonition from them, as 
occasion serves. Besides, had not Mr. B. the oppor- 
tunity of knowing, that Mr. W. did, in fact, treat 
many of those, with whom he would not join in 
social worship, and himself among the rest, as 
beJoved christian brethren, and this at the same 
time that he steadily refused society in worship? 
Again, p. 32, 33, Mr. B. charges this conduct with 
carrying an air of saying, " stand by, I am holier than 
thou,'' — and, p. 36, with « a tendency to gratify 
religious pride/' — and a discordance to « the 
benevolent spirit of the gospel." I am sorrv to 
E 3 



54 



see such charges brought forward by Mr. B. a 
pastor in a christian church which maintains purity 
of christian communion, and am especially struck 
with astonishment, that it should be brought for- 
ward by the author of Discourses on " Purity of 
Christian Communion." Indeed, it is such a use 
of the sacred text, as is commonly made in the 
world, against all persons and churches who refuse 
to hold " fellowship with the unfruitful works of 
darkness," — who " turn away from such as have a 
form of godliness, but deny the power of it." It is 
stigmatized as one of the monstrosities of Methodism? 
that " the children of Israel were not more separ- 
ated, through the favour of God, from the Egyp- 
tians, than the Methodists are, in their own estima« 
tion, from the rest of mankind." Edin. Review? 
No. 22, p. S51. This charge against those termed 
Methodists, is in much the same tone as Mr. B.'s 
against Mr. W. but the former is, more inconsistent^ 
as the charge made may be applied, with equal 
reason, to himself and his own church, as ta 
Mr. W. and his. In Mr. W.'s church, those who 
are in the fellowship, occupy a certain place in the 
apartment for meeting, during all the parts of 
public worship-, and hearers, who are not in the 
fellowship, occupy the other parts of it. In Mr. 
B.'s church, those two classes may sit promiscuously* 
till the church proceeds to the contribution for 
poor members, and the Lord's supper. Then, all 
who are no't in the fellowship, are visibly and pub- 
licly excommunicated, by a marked separation. Those 
in the fellowship, occupy the portion of the house 
allotted for them, and if any other person, through 
ignorance, remain there, one of the deacons will 
show him to another seat. This separation is very 
proper and necessary. It gives no offence. Why, 
then, is a plan, which executes a deed of separation 
every Lord's day, so favourably viewed, and one 



which having once established the same separation, 
only continues to maintain it, so severely censured? 
No good reason can be given to justify the partiality. 
The power of custom accounts sufficiently for the 
fact. This has rendered Mr. B.'s plan now toler- 
able, even to the world, but there was a time when 
it was as " new," and as " strange and as 
much reproached as Mr. W.'s is, and with equal 
reason. 

Again, preaching, without the accompaniment 
of public prayer, is charged with an appearance of 
w self-confidence, and carelessness respecting the 
Divine aid in preaching," p. 38. This charge is as 
groundless as the foregoing. Self-confidence may 
be renounced, and the necessity of Divine aid 
asserted by a preacher, in direct statement, as well 
as by the indirect mode of inference from prayer. 
Besides, Mr. W. as Mr. B. might know, never 
preaches, without solemnly entreating the Divine 
blessing to succeed the word preached. And, 
though he does not call his audience to join with 
him in this as a social prayer, he expresses it in the 
hearing of all. Indeed, Mr. B. seems here to have 
deserted the question at issue, and started another. 
The question at issue is, whether a believer, or 
christian preacher, ought to join with a promiscuous 
audience, or a company of unbelievers, in social 
prayer. Mr. B. attacks those whom he opposes, as 
refusers of personal prayer before unbelievers, 

The same deviation from the point at issue, 
appears in the charge of " Refusing to pray for all 
men, or in their presence," p. 38, — " for a dying 

* In the year 1642, or about that time, Principal Baillie, I 
think, represents it as one of the horrible errors of Independents, 
on account of which they ought not to be tolerated in the nation, 
that they refused church-fellowship to such as did not appear real 
Christians. " This principle," said he, " would depopulate our~ 
f-urcs t rafc rmsd churches / ' 1 



56 



person at his request," p. 39, — " in presence of 
one's own family, and for them," p. 40, — « oppos- 
ing the example of our Lord and his apostles," p. 
42. These are mostly, if not all, cases of personal 
prayer y and so do not touch the question in hand. 
Against this, Mr. W. seems, by his practice, not 
to have the same objections, as to social worship in 
similar company. Perhaps, indeed, he may think, 
that the caution of expression which, to one accus- 
tomed to public prayer, would be necessary to pre- 
serve the personal form of speech, and to avoid the 
social, would ill suit that absorption of the soul 
which is necessary in prayer. Perhaps, he may 
think, that a preacher commencing by praying for 
his audience as unbelievers, and only in his own 
person, would irritate them, harden their hearts, 
and stop their ears, no less effectually, than if he 
had omitted public prayer altogether. 

Notwithstanding all that Mr. B. has said against 
Mr. W.'s principles, he seems to entertain the 
same in a good degree himself. With respect to 
social praise with a promiscuous audience, he says, 
p. 37, " There is ground of scruple here." — 
What is the ground of scruple here, that does not 
apply to social prayer in like cases? It cannot be sup- 
posed, that unbelievers have better access to God 
in prayer than in praise. Nor is the joining with 
the voice in praise outwardly, any thing more, ex- 
pressive of society in the exercise, than standing or 
kneeling during prayer. Mr. B.'s scruple must 
respect joining, or appearing to join (for to join 
really, is impossible,) in social worship, with the 
promiscuous audience. This is so nearly the same 
with Mr. W.'s scruple, that Mr. B. cannot, with a 
very good grace, find fault. 

Besides the foregoing reasonings, Mr. B. alleges 
against Mr. W.'s plan of church-meetings, scrip- 
tural example of persons, who were not in the 



fellowship, mixing with the church-members in 
their public assemblies. Thus, it is said, that 
" Unbelievers might come into the christian assem- 
bly at Corinth, but there is no word of a separate 
place assigned them." It is supposed too, in the 
Epistle of James, that a rich man in " gay clothing," 
might come in, and also a poor man in a vile rai- 
ment." These, Mr. B. argues, must be others 
than church-members. Now, there really is no 
proof either on one side or the other, from either 
of these texts. 1. They both are suppositions to 
illustrate other points. 2* The argument and lan- 
guage might be what it is, whether the marked 
separation was observed, or not. In either case, 
persons might be said to go into the assembly, just as 
we hear every day of people going to a sacrament, 
who yet are not going to communicate. 3. The 
argument and language, in James, would be the 
same, whether the rich and poor man were 
church-members or not. There is nothing in the 
dress of either to decide. 

All that the argument has to do with dress, is, 
that there was such a distinction as could serve to 
mark a rich man, and a poor man. It does not 
follow, that either the church, or the person, was 
to blame in the matter. And though both had been 
members, and ground of blame had existed, it was 
not necessary for the apostle to desert his argument, 
to censure dress. 

There is no proof, then, that the rich and poor 
men were not church-members; and, on the sup- 
position that they were not, Mr. B.'s argument 
from this text is entirely founded. 

The instances adduced by Mr. B. of the conduct 
of our Lord and his apostles, all belong either to 
personal prayer, or to the Jewish worship, while the 
kingdom was yet of this world. They are aside 
from the question. 



58 

It must be confessed in favour of Mr. Walker's 
mode, 1. That the end proposed is very important, 
— the exhibition of the separation of christian 
worshippers from the world, and their union among 
themselves. 2. That the means employed by Mr. 
W. for this end, are, at least, as effectual and con- 
sistent, as the means used by those who blame 
him. 3. That this mode would not only manifest 
an uniformity of solemnity in all parts of public 
worship, but would prevent the necessity of that 
confused, distracting, and unseemly interval which, 
according to the present practice, takes place be- 
tween the observance of the other ordinances, and 
the Lord's supper and collection. 4. That the 
adoption of this mode would be very desirable to 
many* who do not think it so absolutely necessary, 
as to mak© it a term of christian fellowship. 
I am, 

Deae Brother, 

Yours, truly, 



J. WATT. 



li E M ARKS 

OCCASIONED BY 

$®v< £aart)lato'0 Lertttres 

IN 

Defence of Infant Baptism, 
From Romans IV. 



aN the former chapter, ver. 20, the apostle asserts, 
By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in 
Ins (God's) sight; and in verse 28, teaches that a 
mart (any man, Jew or Gentile) is justified by faith 
without the deeds of the law. In this chapter, the same 
doctrine is illustrated and confirmed by the case of 
Abraham. Verse 1, Paul stiles this patriarch, Our 
father according to the flesh. He thus calls the atten- 
tion to the case of one well known and highly 
esteemed; one who had as strong claims to be just- 
ified by works as any other could have, and one 
whose circumstances would be as eagerly emulated 
as any other. What Jiath he found? This question 
respects the subject in hand — justification. How 
was he justified? It would be very idle to apply 
the query to other matters. Though this patriarch 
was the father of those who believe ■, the attention is not 
here called to this relation, but to this, our father 
according to the flesh: and though he was, in very 



60 



many respects, eminently favoured by God, the at- 
tention is not called to these, but to his personal 
justification, and whether it was of works or of grace. 
This personal case is employed as an example. — 
Accordingly, the chapter is thus concluded: It was 
not written for his sake alone, tliat it (justification) was 
imputed to him, but for us also, to whom it shall be im- 
puted, if we believe on him who raised up Jesus our 
Lord from the dead, who was delivered for our offences, 
rind raised again for our justification, verse 22, 23, 24. 
Having stated the apostle's design in this chapter, 
we next consider how he executes this design. 

Verse 2. If Abraham were justified by works, he 
hath whereof to glory, but not before God. The sense 
of this text would have been more obvious, if it 
had been thus rendered: For if Abraham had been 
justified by works, he would have had whereof to glory 
before God, but he hath not ; for what saith the scrip* 
iure, &c. This reading is fully as agreeable to the 
(original words as the other, and it is more con- 
sistent with the scope. Abraham had no room to 
boast, for the scripture saith not, he was justified 
by works, but — Abraham believed God, and is was ac- 
counted to him for righteousness. If it had been by 
works, it must have been a matter of debt or right, 
riot mere grace or favour. — To him that worketh is 
ilie reward net reckoned of grace but of debt, verse 4. 
But as this patriarch was justified by faith, his 
reward could not be of debt; he who believeth 
worketh not for justification, and is justified as 
ungodly, and destitute of works. He wlio believeth 
cn him who justifieth the ungodly, is justified by this ^ 
faith, verse 5. 

The apostle next shows that the same doctrine 
was taught by the prophet David in Psalm xxxii. 
Thus David describeth the blessedness of the man 
to whom God imputeth righteousness without 
works — whom he justifieth, though destitute of 



61 



godliness; Blessed are they whose iniquities are for* 
given, and whose sin is covered: blessed is the man to 
whom the Lord will not impute sin, verses 6, 7, 8. 
Here it is evident, that to have iniquity forgiven, 
and sin covered, is a great blessedness. It is 
evident, too, that this is the same blessedness as 
justification. It is the blessedness of the man, to 
whom God imputeth righteousness without works. 
This was the blessedness celebrated by David, and 
experienced by Abraham.— And, as the rewarding 
of righteousness, differs from the forgiving of sin; 
so justification by the deeds of the law, stands 
opposed to justification by faith. 

In verse 9, &c. the apostle proceeds to prove, 
that this blessing is equally attainable by the Gen- 
tile as the Jew, and that circumcision has as little 
concern in it, as any other work of the law. For 
this purpose, he uses the same case of Abraham:— 
Cometh this blessedness (the forgiveness of sins) then* 
upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision 
also? Let the case of Abraham determine. Was 
he justified in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not 
in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. Not as a 
qualified person and circumcised, but as uncircum- 
cised and unqualified for any other blessing but 
forgiveness of sin. This he, while uncircumcised, 
obtained, by believing on him who justifieth the 
ungodly. 

Nay, circumcision was so far from being the 
foundation of his title to justification, or any previ- 
ous qualification, that this symbol was given him as 
a seal, confirming the blessing, and the fact that he 
was previously justified. He received the sign of 
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness cf the faith 
which he had, yet being uncircumcised, verse 10. It 
seems unnecessary to enlarge on the meaning cf 
circumcision, as a sign and seal in itself, or beyond 
what is the apostle's intention. The sign of circum- 

F 



62 



cision is, — circumcision the sign, or TOKEN; a seal of 
Abraham's justification. Abraham believed God, 
he was justified. His sins were forgiven, God 
confirmed to him, or assured him of, his blessing, 
sealed it to him by this sign, circumcision. The 
apostle's meaning plainly is, — he received circum- 
cision as a sign and seal, a token sealing, an ob- 
servance and mark, confirming that he was justified 
by faith. — Thus, by calling circumcision a dgh, the 
apostle simply means, that it was the sign confirm- 
ing the blessing, not as if this rendered the point 
more sure in the eye of God, but as it gave the 
patriarch greater consolation. 

By this justification, previous to circumcision, 
and circumcision as the sign confirming it to Abra- 
ham, he became the father, chief example, or 
precedent of believers, both uncircumcised and 
circumcised. 1. Being justified previous to circum- 
cision, by faith, he became the father and pattern 
of believing Gentiles, in their justification. They 
are justified without the deeds of the law, and 
without circumcision, as he was. He thus became 
the father cf all them thai believe, though they be not 
circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them 
also, verse 2. And as his circumcision was a sign, 
sealing or confirming his previous justification by 
faith, it insures the same point, relative to Gentile 
believers, viz. that they are justified by faith, inde- 
pendently of circumcision, or any other legal quali- 
fication. 2. It proves the same point, respecting 
circumcised believers, viz. that they did not obtain 
the blessing of justification, in virtue of their 
jewish distinctions, circumcision, or any other; 
but only and entirely by faith. But Abraham 
was the father of circumcised believers, in 
another respect. His circumcision being a 
sign sealing his previous justification, he became 
the father of circumcision to those who are net 



63 



only circumcised^ but also walk in the steps of that faith y 
verse 12. As soon as they believe, his circum- 
cision is the pattern of theirs, and theirs the copy 
of his, relative to the point in hand, — justification. 
Abraham believed God, and obtained justification, 
and his circumcision proved this. Circumcised 
believers were justified by faith, independently of 
circumcision, and their circumcision prove this. 
Thus, Abraham was to such the father of circum- 
cision. 

But when the apostle says, that he became the 
father of circumcision to such of the circumcised 
as believe, he indicates that he was not* in the same 
view, the father of circumcision to such circumcised 
as believed not. His circumcision is not the pat- 
tern of theirs; theirs is not the copy of his, and 
does not convey the same meaning. He indicates 
also, that when any Jew becomes a believer, and 
obtains justification, his circumcision gets a new 
meaning, which it had not previously. — It now 
becomes the token of free justification. This it 
was to Old Testament believers. What other 
uses circumcision had, and what it signifies in the 
abstract, it is needless . here to inquire. The 
apostle's design is, to prove that it is not necessary 
to justification; and he evinces this, by its original 
institution and future uses. 

Having thus obviated the objection to his doc- 
trine, taken from Abraham's circumcision, and used 
it as a proof in his favour, the apostle makes a 
similar use of the promise of the blessing made 
to him. The promise to Abraham, that he should be 
heir of the world, was not to him nor to his seed through 
the law ; but through the righteousness of faith, verse 
13. This promise, as it related to Abraham, seems 
to be expressed in these words: / have made thee a 
father of many nations , verse 1 7. —As it related to his 
seed, it was, hi thy seed shall all the families o t • 



64 



earth be blessed. The blessing meant, is that men- 
tioned, Gal. Hi. 14. The blessing of Abraham which 
comes upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christy when 
they receive (justification J the promise of the spirit 
through faith. This promise was not to Abraham 
through the law, but through faith. He believed 
God, and was justified.- — He believed God, and 
was made the father of many nations, the heir of 
the world, The blessing promised to the seed;among 
the families of the earth, they do not enjoy by the 
works of the law, but by faith. Hence, says the 
same apostle to the Galatians, If ye be believers, then 
are ye Abraham *s seed, and heirs according to the promise. 
— Received ye the spirit, by the works of the law, or by 
the hearing of faith? — This spirit is the earnest of the 
inheritance. On these words, heir of the world, some 
have said much on the land of Canaan, which was 
promised to Abraham; and of worldly prosperity 
sed to believers in the millenium state. 
However true these views may be, they seem to 
form small part of the apostle's meaning in this text. 
It is of justification by faith, without the deeds of 
the law, that he is speaking. As he leads, let us 
follow. Says he, verse 14, 15. If they (only J who 
are of the law, be heirs, faith is made void, and the 
promise made of none effect ; because the law worheth 
wrath, for where no law is, there is no transgression. 
[We here see by the contrast, that the blessing 
spoken of is justification, and the inheritance, those 
blessings which flow from it, chap. v. 1, 2.] — If 
conformity to the law, was necessary to constitute 
a title to the blessing, Abraham could not have 
enjoyed it, the Gentiles could not have been blessed 
in him, faith would be unprofitable; for the terms 
of the law are, the man who doeth these things, shall 
live in them; and cursed is every one who continueth 
not in all things written in the book of the law to do 
them. Thus the law worheth wrath. But since 



65 



Abraham, by faith, escaped this wrath; and since 
those who believe, enjoy the same blessing with 
him, those who are of the law, cannot be heirs. 
No; as many as are of the works of the /aw, are under 
the curse, Gal. iii. 9. 

Having thus proved the opposite view to be 
absurd, the apostle concludes, verse 16. Therefore, 
it (justification J is by faith, that it might be by grace, 
that the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that 
only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the 
faith of Abraham^ who is the father of us all, — of all 
who believe, Jews and Gentiles, " before him (in his 
view) whom he believed, even God who quickeneth 
the dead, and calleth those things that be not, as 
though they were," verse 17. God viewing futurity 
thus, said to Abraham, I have made thee a father of many 
nations. Abraham believed and was justified. — His 
faith and his justification are exhibited as a pattern 
to us. 

God said to him, as the stars of heaven, so shall 
thy seed be. He believed, and hoped that he might 
be the father of many nations. This faith and 
hope he maintained against hope, and in opposition to 
all human probability. In this faith he was not weak 
nor staggering, but strong and stedfast. He entered 
not into calculations on the deadness of his own 
body, now one hundred years old, nor the deadness 
of Sarah's womb, when she was ninety. He ob- 
viated all such surmisings, by full confidence in the 
truth and power of the promising God. He was 
strong in faith > giving glory to God, being fully persuaded, 
that what He had promised, He was able also to perform, 
and, therefore, it was imputed to him for righteousness. 
Such was the faith by which Abraham was just- 
ified, verses 18, 22. 

His justification by this faith is recorded and 
attested, not for his own sake alone, but for an 
example and assurance to future generations. Says 
F 3 



66 



the apostle, we, in like manner, shall have right- 
eousness imputed to us. We shall be justified 
by faith, if we believe on him wJw raised up 
the Lord Jesus from the dead, who was delivered 
for our offences ', and raised again for our justification, 
verses 23, 24. The apostle seems to advert to 
similarity of the fact, or exertion of power believed* 
in the example of Abraham's faith adduced, and i:i 
the faith required in those addressed. The patriarch 
believed in God, as the quickener of the dead, the 
creator of life. This obviated the consideration, 
that his own body was dead, that Sarah's womb was 
dead; and gave glory to God in his power and in 
his veracity. There is no doubt but his faith looked 
forward to the sequel also. But this example bears 
a convincing analogy to the belief, that God hath 
raised his Son from the dead, that his power ensures 
the possibility, and his veracity ascertains the fact 
of this and all its consequences. 

Such seems to be the apostle's view. Should 
any think, that somewhat should be said on this 
chapter, of the import of circumcision in the case 
of infants or unbelievers, I answer, the Spirit of 
inspiration seems not to have such cases in view. 
He is speaking of circumcision and its import, in 
the case of Abraham as a justified person, and of 
those to whom, in this respect, he was die father 
of circumcision. 

Nor need we say any thing here of the temporal 
inheritance. There seems no reason to think that 
it was in view. It was rather the inheritance to 
which Paul personally aspired, and to which he 
calls the believing Romans personally to aspire. 

It would be still farther from the apostle's scope, 
to deduce from this passage, a treatise on infant 
baptism, and must be unprofitable. If we wish to 
know the mind of the Holy Spirit, on any part of 
our duty, let us search for it in those parts of the 



67 



divine word which treat on that subject. If we 
find it not there, it is vain to look elsewhere. 

In fine, let the design of the Spirit, in adducing 
the example of Abraham, be improved in practice. 
— Wherever the example of eminent believers is 
set down, an injunction, either expressed or im- 
plied, accompanies. Whose faith follow, considering 
the end of their conversation, Jesus Christy the same 
yesterday, to-day , and for even 



REPLY 

TO 

ON THE GREEK, 

RESPECTING AN EXPRESS WARRANT FOR 

Female Communion. 



In reading Mr. Peter Edwards' Candid Reasons for 
renouncing the principles of Antipoedobaptism, I 
have often thought, that a few remarks on the 
Reason and the Candour displayed in these Candid 
Reasons, might be grateful to many readers. 
As, however, the author seems peculiarly anxious, 
that the variegated learning contained in the piece, 
should obtain particular notice, it has attracted my 
first attention. Here, we meet with a considerable 
parade of Logic, with its apparatus of Theses j Premisses , 
Middle terms, Zsfc. Latin canons and maxims meet 
us occasionally; verbal criticism of Greek terms 
abounds. Thus, the learned are entertained, the 
unlearned are astonished into belief or silence. As 
Greek criticism not only takes the lead in the first 
part of the first chapter, but forms the basis of 
almost the whole system, and affords the chief 
ground of glorying to the author; the consideration 
of this claims our first attention. 



70 



Our author exhibits his learning in this depart- 
ment, chiefly on the question, whether there be in 
scripture an express warrant, in precept or example, 
for admitting believing females to the Lord's sup- 
per. He makes Baptists appear to argue thus: — « A 
person who has a right to a positive institute, must 
be expressly mentioned as having that right; but 
infants are not so mentioned, &c." This argu- 
ment, by itself, perhaps, no Baptist, ever used. 
However, Mr. E. imputes it, and urges, that not 
only it is false, but they who use it are incon- 
sistent, in admitting females to the Lord's table. 
Mr. Booth had urged, that there is an express 
command for such admission, in 1 Cor. xi. 28. 
Let a man examine himself, a?id so let him eat of thai 
bread and drink of that cup. To prove this, he 
argues, that the word for man here, is in the 
Greek «v0 P «^, which is often a name for the 
species, and that " where the sexes are distinguished 
and opposed, the word for man is not but 
avrip." Mr. E. asserts, that though the case were 
so, this could not be an express warrant, for that 
" an express word in this case, must be one which 
specifies the (female) sex." He further denies 
Mr. B.'s position, and adduces nineteen examples, 
in which he alleges it disproved. 

I observe, on the first of these, that he is egregi- 
ously wrong. To pass by, as trifling, his explana- 
tions of the word express, in which he says only, 
fC it is opposed to inference, analogy, and implication" 
I observe, that the express meaning of any text, is 
that meaning which that text does express. When 
Mr. E. asserts, that an express word in the present 
case, must be one which specifies the sex, he 
denies that an institute can be enjoined on both 
sexes, by a term which can express both. In 
opposition to his view, the command to baptize 
folievers* is an express command to baptize believing 



71 



males. It is also an express command to baptize 
believing females, because the term believer , ex- 
presses either a male or a female. A master says 
to his servant, " fell the trees in such a field." 
This is an express order applicable to any tree he 
meets with. A reasoner, such as Mr. E. would 
say to him, you have no express order to fell this 
ash or yonder elm. The servant might, probably, 
reply, I am to fell the trees, and this ask and that 
elm are clearly expressed by the term tree. And 
unless you, Mr. E. can prove that they are not 
trees, you cannot disprove that I have an express 
order to fell them. Thus, also, a believing female 
might urge. The command is, " Let a (or any 
er^pxro^ man examine himself, and so let him eat 
of that bread, and drink of that cup." But the 
term «^^t^, expresses me as well as any other. 
Mr. E. denies and ridicules this idea. He thus 
only developes his own ignorance of the meaning 
and use of the term express. He might just as well 
deny, that we have an express declaration of the 
mortality of women in the words, ™ Man that is 
born of a woman, is of few days and full of trouble;" 
or in those, " Thou turnest to destruction, man 
who is mortal; thou sayest, ye s&m of men return." 

To disprove Mr. B.*s position that « When the 
sexes are distinguished and opposed, the word for 
man is net but «*W and to prove his own, 

that *vQpa*c S is « used to distinguish the male from 
the female," Mr. E. quotes the following texts*, 
each of which contains the word *»0p»*e** which is, 
or might be rendered man, viz. " Therefore shall a 
man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to 
his wife," Gen. ii. 24', repeated Mark x. 7, Mat. 
xix. 5, Eph. v. 13. — " Abimelech charged all his 
people saying: He that toucheth this man or Ins wife, 

* From 70 and N. T. 



72 



shdlt surely be put to death" Gen. xxvi. 1L— 
Simeon and Levi the brethren of Dinah, said, 
< ( IV e cannot do this things to give our sist-er to one (a man) 
that is uncircumcised" Gen. xxxiv. 14.- — " What man 
is titer e that hath betrothed a wife" Deut. xx. 7. — 
" Thou shalt bring forth that man, or that woman" 
Deut xvii. 5. — " To cut off from you man and woman ^ 
child and suckling" Jer. xliv. 7. — In N, T. — " If 
the case of the man be so with his wife" Mat. xix. 10. 
* — " Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for 
every cause?" Mark x. 7. — " // is good for a man not to 
touch a woman" 1. Cor. vii. 7. — " Their faces were 
as the faces of men, and they liadhair as the hair of women" 
Rev. ix. 7, 8. Besides these quotations Mr. E. 
refers to Gen. ii. 18. — Lev. xix. 20.— Num. xxv. 8. 
— Deut. xxi. 15 — xxii. 30. — Esther, iv. 11. Thus 
he ekes up his nineteen examples, which he says lie 
against Mr. B.'s assertion. 

On these I observe, that not one of them is per- 
tinent-, for, the text on which Mr. B. is reasoning, 
1. Cor. xi. 28, is one in which only one of the terms 
occurs-, but each of Mr. E.'s contains two terms, 
one applied to the male, another to the female-, 
Mr. E. ought to have adduced a text in which the 
term a*&p*xot (man) clearly distinguishes the male sex, 
by its own power, as the word r vv * (woman) distin- 
guishes the female. Of this he has failed. Again, 
Mr. B. requires a text in which the sexes are distin- 
guished and opposed. But in not one of Mr. E.'s 
nineteen cases, are the sexes both distinguished and 
opposed. Again, though in most of these examples, 
the sexes are distinguished, in some they are not even 
distinguished. But, besides, in those cases in which 
they are distinguished, the term man is 
not once used to distinguish the male from the female. 
For, 1. A term which sometimes stands for the species, 
never can, of itself, distinguish either one sex or 
another. Such is the case with the term in ques- 



i 



lion. Mr. E. might, with equal reason, urge, that 
the terms, sheep, swine, or deer, can distinguish the sex 
in these classes of animals, as the word «vOp^c, in 
human nature. 2. When any species is to be dis- 
tinguished into two classes, a distinctive term applied 
to one of the classes, is always sufficient to express 
the distinction. Thus, when I say the flock con- 
tained one hundred sheep besides the rams; these 
one hundred sheep are distinguished in sex from the 
rams, although the term sheep cannot express any- 
sexual distinction. Just so were it said, They that 
did eat were « four thousands" besides women and 
children: the sex of the four thousands is sufficiently 
distinguished, though that numeral mark " four 
thousands" contributes nothing to the distinction. 
3. Accordingly, in almost every one of Mr. E.'s 
nineteen examples, a word confessedly common to 
both sexes, such as person, or one, "might be substi- 
tuted for man, without altering the sense, thus: 
For this cause shall a person leave his father and his 
mother, and cleave to his wife. If the case of a 
person be thus with his wife, it is good not to marry. 
In such instances as these, the sexes are not op- 
posed but combined > for the following meanings are 
equally contained in them 3 For this cause shall a 
woman leave her father and her mother, and shall cleave 
to her husband. — If the case of a woman be so with her 
husband, it is good not to marry, 4. In these instances, 
the word man (*v9^.?) does not distinguish the 
male sex, for were it not for the word wife, woman, 
or some such word, in the counterpart of the 
sentence, or for the sense of the context, it would 
be impossible to know to which of the sexes it 
applies. Thus, in the text, " v/e cannot gh 7 e our 
sister to one («oe^^) uncircumcised." Did we 
not know, on other grounds, that the giving here 
spoken of, is giving in marriage we could no" 
know from this text, that the one spoken of i* of 

G 



74 



the male sex. Were a heathen lady to desire a 
damsel out of a christian family, for a domestic 
servant; the damsel's brothers might use the very 
same language: " We cannot do this thing, to give 
our sister to one who is an infidel X^paarm a^,^.)" 
5. Some of the instances given, do not so much as 
distinguish the sexes; thus, Rev. ix. 7, 3. " They 
had faces like the faces of men, and their hair was 
as the hair of women" is quite foreign to Mr. E.'s 
purpose. It is, They had faces like the human 
race, and hair like the females of that race. Nor 
are the sexes distinguished in Deut. xvii. 5. or 
Jer. xliv. 7. any farther, than to afford an emphatic 
dilatation of the threatening and charge. The 
word man, would denote the whole that is denoted 
by man and woman in the one case, and by man 
and woman, infant and stickling, in the other; but 
the expression would be less emphatic. 

Thus, I have shown, that no one of Mr. E's 
nineteen instances bears on the point, He has not 
given one example of the use of the word *v9pares 3 
•man, to distinguish the male sex, in a sentence, in 
which the sexes are " distinguished and opposed*" In- 
deed, no such thing is to be found. Could he find 
this word in such a sentence as, « Quit yourselves 
like men" (i. e. not like women) 1 Cor. xvi. 13. or 
in such a text as:- — " If a man have long hair it is a 
shame to him ; but if a woman have long hair it is a 
glory to her," 1 Cor. xi. 14, 15. he would have ful- 
filled his engagement; for in these cases, the sexes 
are distinguished and opposed. But unfortunately for 
his attempt, in both these, and all such cases, the 
word for man is, as Mr. B. says, not *v8p«w, but 
«v/yp. Hence, I am fully warranted to assert, that all 
the boasting exhibited by Mr. E. of his examples, 
is vain. And the more he vaunts, the more he 
exposes himself. 

* Mr. Booth's words. 



75 

His glorying, throughout the book, and that of 
all his imitators, who are numerous, with the sur- 
prise of the baptist minister in his house, (if indeed 
the tete-a-tete mentioned p. 12, 13, did exist) only 
demonstrate that such are meddling with things 
they do not understand. Mr. E. displays a similar 
instance of laboured learning, and real mistake, 
when he charges Mr. B. with inferential reasoning, 
on the ground of his appeal to a Lexicon for the sense 
of a word, p. 13. He seems to know as little of 
the meaning of the word inference, as of the words 
express, man, avQpa*oc t or any other. Before he, cr 
any of his imitators write again, on (( the want of 
an express warrant for female communion," they 
would do well to study the usage of language a 
little more accurately, and some of the first prin- 
ciples of construction in grammar. That grammat- 
ical principle called Comprehension, or Syllepsis, may 
be of use to them. They will see by it, how, in 
language, the more dignified class of a species com- 
prehends the less; why the words men and the sons 
of men apply equally to both sexes. Among the 
first rules of Construction, in Clark's Latin gram- 
mar is this: "Two, or more substantives singular, 
have usually a verb, or adjective plural \ and if they 
be of different persons, the verb ; if of different gen- 
ders, the adjective, will be of the most worthy. — Of 
persons, the first is more worthy than the second, 
and the second than the third; of genders, the mas- 
culine is more worthy than the feminine /' e. g. cn 
genders. — " Vir et uxor sunt amantissimi, ut decei 
eos quos Deus conjunxit" 

Such studies would properly precede Logic, Cri- 
ticism, &c. — " A little learning is a dafig'rous 
thing." A little more, or much less, would prevent 
self-exposure. 

Besides, the whole design of these struggles 
against an « express" warrant, is to propagate 
G 2 



76 



a palpable error, which is, that there is the same 
kind of proof for infant baptism, in the word of God, 
as for female communion. Besides, such arguers 
know not, or affect not to know, that it is only against 
the application of "analogical" and " moral" inference 
to positive rites, that such as Mr. B. argue, e. g. 
We judge analogically, that the moon is inhabited- 
Mr, E. might infer, that in the moon there was a first 
man; that he and his posterity sinned; that Christ's 
death is an atonement for their sins; that, on the 
score of universal benevolence, it is our duty to pray 
that their sins may be forgiven, &c. Here is both 
analogical and moral inference* It is just thus, that 
persons reason analogically from circumcision to 
baptism, and, by such moral inferences, the church 
of Rome pleads the utility of her superstitions, such 
as celibacy, penance, pilgrimages, &c. &c. 

But my sheet is nearly full. — Mr. E. said, « the 
express warrant is in 1 Cor. xi. 28, or no where." 
I shall abstract one quotation, 1 Cor. xi. 1= — 32. 
« Brethren — every man — -every woman— when ye 
come together into one place — to eat the Lord's 
supper — my brethren, when ye come together to eat, 
tarry one for another." — Any person, whose mind 
can hold together the sense of these thirty=two 
verses, so as to discern the meaning which they 
express, will be at no loss for an express warrant 
in favour of female communion. 

As the above criticisms and arguments of Mr, E., 
form the chief basis of his reasoning thoughout his 
work; and as his chief glorying and boasting con- 
sist in ringing the changes on these criticisms and 
arguments; to overturn his whole system, it was 
only necessary, as above, to remove the foundation, 
the superstructure will be seen tumbling down of 
itself. 



ON 

The Equivalence of the Official Names, 
ELDER AND BISHOP, 

IN REPLY TO 

f@r* 0retnlle CBtotng'g Criticisms 

ON THE 

OLD SYRIAC VERSION 

OF THE 

NEW TESTAMENT. 



IN the Missionary Magazine* for December 1807, 
it was remarked, that in the " Old Syriac Version" 
of the New Testament, the term " bishop" Phil. i. 
L is rendered " elder-," and the terms which we 
read " bishop, bishop 9 s office, 1 Tim. iii. 1, 2. are 
rendered " elder, elder's office. " It is there alleged 
also, that this serves to prove that the terms " elder" 
and "bishop," are both official terms, and of the same 
meaning. This argument seems pretty conclusive, 
as far as the authority of this Old Version extends. 

But Onesimus (Mr. Greville Ewing) who is pe- 
culiarly interested in the idea, that these terms, as 
they respect office, are different in meaning, has in 
the following February No. of the same publication, 

* The substance of this Paper was offered to the M'ssior.a-v 
Magazine, in proper time, but was rejected. 

G 3 



78 

P. 75, 76, endeavoured to assign other reasons than 
the equivalence of the meaning of the terms for the 
use of " elder" and " elder's office," instead of 
" bishop" and " bishop's office." 

He alleges firsts and he founds the idea on a 
« slight examination of the language," that " there 
is no proper word in the Syriac language for the 
Greek word " bishop" or « overseer," and that, 
therefore, a word nearly of the same import, 
though not exactly the same, is used, viz. the word 
«■ elder." 

Ke alleges farther, that such substitution of terms 
may be expected, as " the Old Syriac is very freely 
translated," in the same manner as we see, in the 
Latin Bible of Castalio, which is a free translation, 
not the exact terms " episcopos, prophetas, presby- 
ter, and diaconus," but " custodes, vates, senior, 
and minister." 

He alleges, thirdly, That though such loose 
translating is often adopted in other cases, yet, 
(C when precision is studied," the original Greek 
word (episcopos,) with a Syriac termination, is 
admitted in the Syriac Version. 

On the first supposition, I observe, that a 
K slight examination" is not sufficient to warrant 
the idea, that a term is wanting in a language. A 
slight acquaintance may enable one sometimes to 
say, that a certain term does exist in a language, 
but before one can say, that a particular term does 
not exist in it, he must possess a very extensive 
acquaintance with it. Accordingly, there is no 
good ground to suppose the Syriae language desti- 
tute of such a term. The occasional adoption of 
the Greek term, is no proof that a Syriac term, 
equivalent, does not exist. If it were, we might 
prove, with equal force, that this language contains no 
proper terms for " gospel, testament, acts, head," &c. 
for, in all these cases, we find the Greek terms 



79 



adopted into the Syriac Version. . The same argu- 
ment would prove, that the Latin language has no 
proper term for " elder," because a Latin Version 
adopts the term " presbyter," which is Greek. The 
same kind of argument would prove, against ob- 
vious fact, that the term " overseer," is not in the 
English language, for we find, in the English Ver- 
sion, as well as in the Syriac, the Greek term 
adopted. And if the adoption of the Greek term 
" bishop" into the English Version, is no proof that 
that language does not contain an equivalent term, 
a similar adoption into the Syriac, is no proof that 
that language is destitute of an equivalent term. 

Besides, it might have been known, that the 
Hebrew language, of which the Old Syriac is a 
dialect, does contain a term equivalent to overseer- 
or bishop, and that this term fpakid J is familiar to 
every boy acquainted with the commonest Hebrew 
grammar. By consulting the proper places in 
Ezekiel and Daniel, Hebrew terms for " watch- 
man" and " watcher," will be found; and by con- 
sulting Mat. xxv. 13, 43. Syriac terms may be 
found for " watch" and " visit;" and why the 
language should not be able, from any of these, to 
form a term equivalent to " overseer" or " bishop," 
it is difficult to say. 

But laying aside probabilities, there are, in fact, 
terms for bishop and bishop's office, in the Syriac. 
Thus, where we read, (Acts i. 20.) « His * bishopric 9 
let another take;" the Syriac has tesliemeshteh" 
in the text, " shepherd and bishop of souls," 1 Pet. 
ii. 25. the Syriac Version has " saghora" and in the 
same epistle, chap. v. 2. the text, " taking the over- 
sight " or " exercising the bishop's office," is ren- 
dered by " saghoru" 

Thus, it appears, that the use of the term elder 
in Syriac, where the term bishop occurs in the Greek, 
has been adopted not because the Syriac wants a 



80 



proper term for " bishop/' as Mr. E. supposes. And 
when we find the term « elder/' used in the Syriac, 
for « bishop/' in Phil. i. 1. 1 Tim. iii. I, 2. and 
Tit- L 7. it seems evident, that these terms, as well 
as that used, 1 Pet. ii. 25. were, in the view of the 
framers of that version, equally expressive of the 
Pastor's office. 

Mr. E. farther alleges, as a reason why the term 
" elder," appears instead of " bishop," that " the Old 
Syriac is very freely translated," like the Latin Bible 
of Castalio, in which we do not find the terms " epis- 
copos, prophetas, presbyter, and diaconus," but 
" custodes, vates, senior, and minister." These, 
however, are not very apt examples of free transla- 
tion. Since Castalio has translated at ail, he could 
not have done it more accurately, or more literally. 
Had he used the terms proposed by Mr. E. (as they 
are all Greek terms,) he might have been said to 
adopts rather than translate, and then some one 
might have alleged of the Latin, as this writer has 
supposed of the Syriac, that it had no proper term 
for " bishop," nor for " prophet," nor for " elder," 
nor for " deacon." 

But though all the above criticisms were as solid 
as they are groundless, it would only be the more 
fatal to the theory. The writer holds, that in the 
texts where " elder" appears instead of " bishop," 
precision was not intended, but, " when precision is 
studied^ the original Greek word, with a Syriac ter- 
mination, is admitted into the Syriac Version." 
Let this be so for a moment. This supposition 
will prove, that « when precision is studied," the 
terms " bishop" and " elder," are used as exactly 
equivalent to each other. In Acts xx. 28. Paul 
charges the < { elders" of the church at Ephesus, 
C£ Take heed to the flock, over which the Holy 
Ghost hath made you overseers" Syr. Ver. episkupa y 
Gr. episbipotiS) Eng. bishops. 



81 



Thus, then, this very Old Version in the Syriac 
dialect, goes to prove, even upon Mr. E.'s own 
plan, that the terms elder and bishop, are both 
official designations, and that they are exactly 
equivalent. The same thing appears evident from 
many other considerations, which do not belong 
to the present topic of argument, 



I 



©X 

Speaking the Truth in Lore" Eph. iv. 15. 

IN REPLY TO 

OX THE ORIGIXAL. 



In the Missionary Magazine, No. 155, p. 247— 
249, I observe some critical observations by Onesi- 
mus (Mr. Greville Ewing) on the above expression, 
intended to fix its meaning. For this purpose, he 
" confines" himself to a few remarks on the proper 
meaning of the original word rendered " speaking 
the truth:" 

On this I observe, that for a critic so to confine 
himself, is one of the most improper and mislead- 
ing plans which he could possibly adopt. In this 
way we would' reject the aid of the context in 
deciding on the meaning of words, and so could 
never discover their different acceptations; if, in- 
deed, any one of them could ever be discovered. 
But let us try his plan on another word in the con- 
text, the word rendered " children/' in the expres- 
sion U that we be no longer children" — Every Greek 
scholar knows that the proper meaning of the 
original term, rendered here, (£ child/' is one 



84 



who cannot, or who does not " speak." The same 
is the proper meaning of the English, French, 
Spanish, and Latin, word, which we express " In- 
fant." Hence, to explain this expression, on O.'s 
plan, we would read this part of the text, "that 
we be no longer speechless." It is needless to add 
that this reading would be quite foolish and absurd. 
On the same plan, when we read of a person called 
" Infanta," or Infant, in Spain, we would be led to 
conclude that such person is always " dumb," or at 
least " silent," for such is the " proper meaning of 
the original word." Again, when we confine our- 
selves to the proper original meaning of the word 
Delphinus, we know it to be a fish called a Dolphin. 
But when we find a whole set of Latin books pub- 
lished for the use of Delphinus, we are obliged not 
to confine ourselves to the proper meaning of the 
original word, but to consult such other helps to 
the sense as the context will afford, and we find 
that this Delphinus was the Dauphin of France, 
if then, a critic would avoid the paths which lead 
to absurdity and impertinence, he ought never to 
attempt to fix the meaning of a text in scripture, 
by confining himself " to the proper meaning of an 
original word." 

The design of O. in attempting to fix the mean- 
ing of these words, is to show that it betrays much 
ignorance, and demonstrates the vast disadvantage 
under which an interpreter of scripture labours, 
who is unacquainted with the original, (e. g. Mr. 
Braidwood,) to use this clause, "speaking the truth in 
love," as a proof or warrant for brotherly exhortation 
in Christian churches. He says the term, thus trans- 
lated, " has no particular reference to speaking more 
than to acting" p. 247.— but signifies, " living agree- 
ably to the truth;" or, " living a life of integrity and 
uprightness;" — " maintaining the truth," — and is 
equivalent to the injunction, w Let love be without 



1 



85 



^simulation." That though the term is sometimes 
applied to veracity in speaking, that is a restricted 
use of the word. Here it is unrestricted, and sig- 
nifies holding or maintaining the truth in love, that 
is, " a practical adorning the doctrine of Christ in 
all things," p. 248. 

Now here are a sufficient number of glosses on 
the text, each respectively given as its meaning, and, 
therefore, equivalent to each other; but they are not 
mutually equivalent. " Maintaining the truth," is 
a good translation of the Greek term, but few will 
admit that " living a life of integrity and upright- 
ness;" " let love be without dissimulation ;"— or, 
c< a practical adorning of the doctrine of Christ in 
all things,"— are good and appropriate explanations 
of the expression " maintaining the truth." I am 
fully warranted to deny that either the Greek word 
Aieiheuontesy or the English phrase, " maintaining 
the truth," equally " refer to acting as to speaking." 
It is true, indeed, that « maintaining," will apply 
equally to either; but it is not true that the term 
" truth," is as nearly allied to acting as to speaking. 
When Jesus says, « I came to bear witness of the 
truth," an interpreter such as O. might urge, 
that by " the truth" here, we are not directed in 
our views to the doctrine of Christ specifically, but 
to the whole tenor of his upright life, or to his true 
love to his disciples; but nobody would believe him. 
When Paul asks, Gal, iv. 16. " Am I become 
your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" has the 
term truths no nearer affinity to words than to 
actions? Here, true and truth are set in opposition 
to " lying or false, and lies." No doubt, the term 
is sometimes extended to conduct, but it is speci- 
fically the adequate opposite of lies, of falsehood^ and 
the like. O. might insist that " false feet," or 
*§ lying heels," are expressions equally proper with 
** false tongue," and " lying lips," on equally good 



86 



grounds, as he reckons " maintaining the truth/'' to 
to be equally applicable to actions as to words. O. 
seems just as far astray In explaining the Greek as 
the English-, and in the English as the Greek. — 
Again, let us understand the term emphatically, as 
in the text, " the belief of the truth* " Sanctify 
them through thy truths thy word is truth" « Ye 
have purified your souls in obeying the truth" 
There is surely in the word, as here used, a special 
reference to words, rather than to actions; to doc- 
trine, rather than to conduct. Now, O. himself 
teaches, that there is in the word a reference to the 
" doctrine of Christ." If so, this reference must 
be in the term truth) in the English phrase; and in 
that part of the compound Greek word, which cor- 
responds to it. Thus, by his own consent, yet in 
opposition to the point he sets out to maintain, the 
meaning of the expression has a more particular 
reference to words than to actions. 

But though all that O. asks were granted, it 
would be of little use to his argument. Granting, 
for a moment, that " maintaining the truth" in love, 
or the Greek term so rendered, is a general expres- 
sion, equally applicable to acting as to speaking; 
still the latter will be an important particular. If 
it be argued that the injunction does not require 
speakings because it requires acting equally, it might 
with equal propriety be urged, that because it sig- 
nifies speaking, it cannot apply to action. Thus, a 
reasoner who wished to get rid of the obligation of 
the text, might cashier both action and speech in 
their turn, as either duty presented itself to his 
view. To prove that this text does neither war- 
rant nor enjoin brotherly exhortation, O. ought to 
have showed, not that the word equally applies to 
acting as to speaking, but that it is entirely confined 
to action, and excludes speech. Otherwise, without 
speaking, the injunction cannot be obeyed. 



87 



To support and accredit his view, O. has dis- 
played much learning, and adduced many author- 
ities. But it is remarkable, that he has not been 
able to adduce one text which supports him, either 
from the LXX, the New Testament, or elsewhere. 
Gal. i. 16. which he adduces, is exactly against 
him; for the "truth" there mentioned is the "gospel," 
in opposition to the errors of judaizing teachers. — 
Prov. xxi. 3. he mistranslates by a tautology, " to 
do justice, and to act with integrity," — " To do 
justice, and to speak truth" is a much more expres- 
sive as well as literal translation. The whole of 
human conduct externally, is comprised in speaking 
and acting; and this text thus extends to the whole 
of it. As no other text is brought forward, to 
warrant Q.'s interpretation, he ought to have estab- 
lished it by the circumstances of the context. But 
these he has excluded, and, as we shall see after- 
wards, opposed. 

The authors adduced, as of the same mind on 
this text with O. are not in the same mind with 
each other, — " To be steady in love." Syr. Int. 
Locke and Beza. — " To conduct ourselves sincerely 
in love." Beza, Luther, Beausobre, L' Enfant, and 
Wakefield. — Are not the very same with " Doing 
the truth," — " Holding the truth," — « Following 
the truth," — " Maintaining the truth." Vulgate, 
Castalio, Rochelle Bible, Geneva Bible, Spanish Bible, 
Scarlett, and Doddridge.— The note from Beza claims 
particular attention. He gives one version in his 
text, and another in his note; I say another, (for a 
person may be, for a time, very sincere in love, who 
yet is not very steady in it), Then he subverts 
himself, by telling us that the Greek verb Aletheuein, 
exactly agrees to the Hebrew Aman, which signifies 
in niphal, to be firm, constant, or steady. — In niphal, 
that is, in the Passive. If so, what will it signify 
in the Active, which is used in the text? — If the 
H 2 



83 



passive be to be jjrm y constant, or steady; the active- 
Aletheuein y will be to affirm > confirm, establish, or 
maintain. The thing affirmed or maintained, being 
the " doctrine of Christ," gives a special reference 
to doctrine, rather than to conduct in general. 
Beza seems to have neglected the difference between 
the Hebrew nvphal and kal, the passive and active 
states of the verb, a slip not very excusable amidst 
so much erudition. Let it be granted to Beza, that 
the Greek verb here exactly corresponds to the 
Hebrew Aman y and let us rest the explanation of 
both, on our Lord's use of the latter, and its appli- 
cation to Him. How often does our Lord use the 
expression, « Amen, Amen> — Verily, verily, I say 
unto you." He also is stiled « the Amen, the faith- 
ful and true witness." In both these cases, the 
reference is more to words than to actions. — I can- 
not help remarking on O.'s translation from the 
Vulgate into English. — Facientes veritaiem," he 
renders " doing the truth." To suit his porpose 3 
he ought to have rendered it, " doing truth," for 
* 5 the truth," is equivalent to " the gospel," and 
" doing the gospel," would sound rather aukwardly. 
But, besides, let us try how this mode of translating 
would suit some other Latin phrases. " Facere 
verba" is a common Latin phrase. "Would O. read 
it, " to do words;" or " to speak?" " Fecit verba" 
he did words; or " he spoke?" " Fecit sermon em , 
he did a discourse; or, he delivered a discourse?" 
O. has too good a taste to adopt such aukward trans- 
lations as some of the above, had he not a theory 
to establish. He seems, however, to adopt an error 
in Philology, of very extensive influence, that is, to 
think the most general meaning of a term, the most 
literal and primary. Now, the very reverse of this 
is the case; the primary sense of every term, except- 
ing abstract words, is particular. The extension 
&ttd generalization of its meaning is an after work,— 



89 

No doubt* the word in question may be applied to 
integrity and uprightness of conduct; but the same 
thing may be said of " truth," or even of " trans- 
parency." — Still its most proper meaning will be 
generally found standing first in any Greek Lexicon. 
In Mr. E wing's Greek and English Lexicon, Atetheuein 
is explained, to speak truth; or, to maintain truth. 

In endeavouring to fix the meaning of the Greek 
term in question, and to rescue the text from those 
who employ it in behalf of brotherly exhortation, 
O. has not been very successful. This is no reflec- 
tion on his attainments in Greek; for he has suc- 
ceeded little better in his translation from the Latin 
Vulgate, and still worse in his attempt to explain 
the English phrase, " maintaining the truth." But 
had he succeeded much better in all these, the 
whole would have been an empty trial of skill 5 so 
long as the attention is confined to a single term, 
and the context neglected. On the whole, if we 
reckon the discovery of the sense to be the great 
end of exposition, the great disadvantage under 
which an unlearned expositor labours, is not very 
apparent from the paper. 

I shall, therefore, apply to the context for aid in 
an attempt to explain, even admitting O.'s own 
version, " maintaining the truth in love." And thus, 

1. It appears that this duty is enjoined on the 
christian brethren at Ephesus in their social, or 
general capacity: — not on office-bearers peculiarly; 
but on the whole church. The same who were to 
" maintain the truth in love," were all who were 
to " grow up in all things into the head." This 
O. himself teaches. 

2. This duty is set in opposition to being " tossed 
with every wind of doctrine." These winds of 
doctrine are errors opposed to the gospel. The 

. truth to be maintained, therefore, is the gospel 
Doctrine, rather than conduct, is indicated. 
H 3 



90 



5. The duty enjoined relative to the gospel, is 
opposed to being " tossed," moved away from it, like 
fickle children. It is to " hold the truth in the love 
of it. To stand fast with one mind, striving together 
for the faith of the gospel." It is to " contend 
earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints/ 3 

4. This duty is directed to the edification of the 
body; maintaining the truth in love, that " ye may 
all grow up." 

5. The duty and privilege are mutual and social. 
Hence, " all" are mentioned, All the injury by 
the errors, is represented as social and mutually 
probable; to this the duty is opposed. 

6. If Christians are thus to maintain the doctrine 
of the gospel in the love of it, with a sense of its 
value and importance; and to do this mutually for 
the purpose of establishing, and being established 
in the truth; — -of guarding, and being guarded 
against the tossings of every wind of doctrine;— of 
delivering, and being delivered from any of these 
errors: they are to do so in the most advantageous 
circumstances, when every one can extend the 
benefit to all, and each can enjoy benefit from 
every other; all, thus using and enjoying the benefits 
bestowed on each. Exhortation by the brethren, 
in their most numerous meetings, is the only mode 
which corresponds to these conditions. 

Now, I would ask, how can the mass of a chris- 
tian society, socially and mutually « maintain the 
truth" of the gospel, for each other's mutual edifi- 
cation, in opposition to errors, without speaking to 
each other? The text seems of the same import as 
that in Colossians, " Let the word of Christ dwell 
richly in you in all wisdom, teaching one another, 
and exhorting one another," &c. 

Though O. professed to confine himself to the 
meaning of the original term, he seems to have 
misinterpreted the context in two instances. The 



91 



love mentioned, he seems to explain of love^ or 
christian charity in general. But it appears in- 
tended in the text, specifically as love to the truth, 
" maintaining the truth in love," i. e. in the love of 
it. This appears, because this love is the antidote 
against the childish fickleness of those, who let go 
the truth for a trifling cause. If we love it, we 
will hold it fast. He also seems to understand the 
truth mentioned in the words, as opposed to the 
cunning, craft, and deceit, of the false teachers. 
But it evidently appears to be opposed to the 
" winds of doctrine." This cunning and deceit 
are mentioned, as fitted to operate on fickle childish 
dispositions. The apostle is not so much guarding 
against insincerity in themselves, as against the 
deceit of others. 

To conclude, notwithstanding all that O. or 
others have advanced, it still appears, that a simple 
reader of the New Testament, will see a warrant 
for exhortation by the brethren in their church- 
meetings; and that the injunction contained in the 
text, " speaking the truth in love," cannot be 
obeyed, in its true spirit and meaning, by any 
church in which this observance is neglected. 



1 



J 



REVIEW 

OP A 

DISCOURSE ON ACTS XV. 

BY THE 

Betu 3;o!m Dfcfc, 3. of Cla^goto, 

ON THE 

DIVINE RIGHT OF PRESBYTERY. 



This Discourse concludes a volume of Lectures- 
on select parts of the bock of Acts. It is entitled, 
the Council of Jerusalem. This title indicates the 
author's design, which is more fully stated in the 
conclusion of the discourse, viz, to show that the 
meeting recorded in this chapter, is " the model of 
presbyterian synods, and the scriptural warrant for 
holding such assemblies," p. SS9. Indeed, this 
portion of the scriptures is, by Presbyterians, in 
general, treated as their chief authority; and, to 
apply it as a proof of the point, seems to be our 
author's object throughout the discourse. 

The subject he considers as divided into three 
parts: — 1. The dispute in Antioch, which occa- 
sioned the reference to the apostles and elders at 
Jerusalem; — 2. Their deliberations and decisions 
on the question; — 3. The letter containing their 
decree, which was sent to the churches of Syri?, 
and Ciiicia. 



94 



On verse 1, " And certain men, who came 
down from Jndea, taught the brethren, and said, 
except ye be circumcised, after the manner of 
Moses, ye cannot be saved," Mr. D. observes, 
that this was the origin of the dispute; but he does 
not advert, that this sentiment seems to be intro- 
duced, by way of exceptive, against the conduct of 
Paul and Barnabas, the result of whose mission is 
stated in the last verse but one of the preceding 
chapter: " they (Paul and Barnabas) gathered the 
church together, (at Antioch,) they rehearsed all 
that God had done with them; and how he had 
opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles." To 
keep this in view, seems useful for understanding 
the following procedure; particularly, it shows the 
reason why the decision of the question was trans- 
mitted to the churches in Cilicia and Syria. These 
false teachers Mr. D. supposes to be the same persons 
mentioned in verse 5, " of the sect of the Phari- 
sees." There is no reason for this supposition. 
The evil tendency of their doctrine, as an impeach- 
ment of the perfect merit of the Redeemer, and a 
subversion of the foundation of the gospel, he justly 
states as a reason, why Paul and Barnabas " had 
no small disputing with them." Besides, it was 
also a direct impeachment of Paul and Barnabas in 
their late mission, and a reflection on the validity 
of their success. 

Mr. D. will not allow, that the opposition made 
to those apostolical men, is any evidence " that 
their inspiration was not genera!/^ acknowledged 
by the Christians of their own age." This may be 
true. But this opposition is surely a proof, that 
those who made it, either disputed their inspiration 
in this case, or did not sufficiently acknowledge 
the importance of inspired authority. We find 
Paul often constrained to assert his own inspired 
authority, and thus to silence his opposers. It is 



95 



m this way, that he proceeds to oppose similar 
false teachers in the churches of Galatia. It should 
seem, even, that these false teachers, as if they had 
come from the church of Jerusalem for this 
purpose, alleged the inspired authority against 
Paul. Besides the "violence of the party," and the 
"general nature of the question," noticed p, 363, the 
refusal of authority to dispense with circumcision, 
in discipling the Gentiles, seems to be a reason of 
the reference. But we shall soon see the reason why 
Mr. D. thus supposes " acknowledged" inspiration 
less respectable and decisive, among those early 
Christians, than the authority for which he is about 
to plead. It is added, verse 2, " They determined, 
therefore, that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other 
of them, should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles 
and elders, about this question." Who thus de- 
termined? It would appear to be the parties con- 
cerned, the church at Antioch, consisting of the 
"brethren," whom the false teachers addressed; those 
" teachers," and Paul and Barnabas, whose teaching 
among the Gentiles they had blamed and under- 
rated. " In a following part of the Lecture, our 
author seems to be of this view, for he repeatedly 
speaks of the church of Antioch) as making the refer- 
ence. Had the church of Antioch " intended" that 
the controversy should be decided by immediate 
revelation or apostolical authority, there was no 
cause for "sending" so far. Again, " the purpose of 
the church of Antioch seems to have been, to submit 
the question to a larger assembly than could be 
collected in their own city," That the term "church" 
here, signifies the people, appears from the next 
sentence, where it is said, " no reference was made 
to the church of Jerusalem, or the brethren at large," 
p. 367. These quotations, however, may be viewed 
as inadvertencies ^ for on verse 2, he opposes the 
idea. " Zeal for the pretended authority of the 



96 



Church, in its collective capacity, is carried to 
excess, where an apostle and a prophet are repre- 
sented as receiving and executing its commands. 
There were in Antioch, prophets and teachers; it is 
consonant to all our ideas of propriety and order, 
to conceive "the determination to have been their 
deed. No satisfactory reason can be given, for 
imagining that their authority was inadequate to 
the present purpose, or that it was suspended, to 
make way for the interference of the people," p. 
363, 384. Thus, he reasons for a hind of presby- 
terial deed. But, surely, it was no indignity for 
Paul and Barnabas, to carry into effect, a decision 
framed by themselves and other inspired men, with 
the " concurrence" of the brethren. Nor was their 
concurrence, any suspension of the authority of the 
inspired men who were in the church. It is, how- 
ever, remarkable, that Mr. D. here founds the 
authority to refer the question, on the inspired 
character of those who made the references-, but 
to decide the same question, those inspired men, to 
whom it was referred, must lay aside their inspired 
character and authority. These two views do not 
appear very consistent. I said, " a kind of presby- 
terial deed;" for, though our author intimates, that 
the interference of the brethren, in this reference, 
would be opposite to all our ideas of propriety and 
order, that is, to presbyterian ideas of order; yet, 
presbytery itself, allows the brethren, when their 
church=officers cannot agree, or where they aggrieve 
them, to refer or appeal to a higher court. Mr. 
D.'s zeal here, has been rather excessive — he has 
overshot presbytery. 

However, as the reference is somehow made, 
he provides for a presbyterial court at Jerusalem. 
" The history of this transaction is very short," says 
he, c< and several particulars are omitted," p. 364. 
Such omissions he proceeds to supply, by bringing 



97 



delegates from the churches in Syria and Cilicia to 
Antioch, and sending them up to Jerusalem, along 
with Paul and Barnabas, to represent their respec- 
tive churches in the council, p. 364-. To evade a very 
obvious exception, that " this is a mere assumption 
to serve the purpose of a party," it is urged, that 
" if these churches had made no reference to this 
assembly, and had no delegate present in it," it is 
not easy to conceive upon what principle they were 
bound by its decrees. For, though the sentence of 
the apostles, as representatives of the catholic 
church, would be binding, and this would establish 
a precedent for representative assemblies; they did 
not act in this capacity: for the " decree was en- 
acted also by the elders, and what right these had 
to make laws for other churches, no man is able to 
tell," p. 365. 

Here we see the authority of the apostles to 
teach what Christ commanded, suspended on a sup- 
posed representative character. This is begging 
the question in favour of the representative sys- 
tem. They were net representatives of the churches, 
but the ambassadors of Christ to the churches. To 
suppose the elders such representatives, is begging 
the same question. And though a decree of the 
elders themselves might not be binding, this goes 
no length to invalidate a decree of the apostles 
and elders. Thus, it appears, that the supports to 
the " assumption," are no better than the assump- 
tion itself. 

But that this assembly should be an exact pattern 
for a modern synod, still more seemed necessary. 
Accordingly, Mr. D. proceeds to strip the apostles 
of their inspired character and apostolic authority, 
and to consider them, when the reference was made, 
" on a level with ordinary pastors-" Otherwise, 
he ur^es, « it would have been an affront to the 

I 



98 



apostles to consult, at the same time, the elders 
who were not inspired." The purpose of the 
church of Antioch was not " that the controversy 
should be decided by apostolical authority, but to 
submit the question to a larger assembly than could 
be collected in their own city; and we cannot 
imagine any reason why the apostles admitted the 
elders to deliberate along with them, but to establish 
precedents for calling councils in cases of emer- 
gency *," p. 366, 367. 

Thus, we are told, that the apostles to deliber- 
ate with the elders, ceased to act in the apostolical 
character; that they acted on a level with the 
elders; and that these were uninspired — that is, 
that they acted with no higher authority than is 
competent to uninspired men. The same prin- 
ciples are advanced in treating the discussion of 
the question, and the decision or decree. He as- 
serts, that in the discussion, no " person rose and 
pronounced the dictates of inspiration, but apostles 
and elders consulted together on equal terms" p. 
369; and that the solemn annunciation of the 
decree, 6 it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to 
us/ ought not to be considered as a claim of in- 
spiration," p. 386. It is insinuated, that inspiration 
was not at all necessary in this case; that u there was 
nothing different in the form from what may be 
practised, and often is practised, in other assemblies. 
No person pronounced the dictates of inspiration. 
The decree was founded on a well known fact, 
corroborated by other facts, and upon an argument 
from scripture," p. 369. There is no reason for 
« asserting that it would be arrogant in other coun- 
cils to speak in the same style," though they could 
not " refer to some miraculous operation confirm- 
ing their sentence. The scriptures are written 

* To adopt a measure, useless at the time, merely to be a pre- 
cedent in future, is unexampled in scripture. 



1 



99 



with such plainness that their meaning may be 
certainly known. The decree of a council, clearly 
founded upon scripture, undoubtedly seems good 
to the Holy Ghost, and what should hinder it from 
saying so," our author is " unable to comprehend ," 
p. 387, 388. So reasons Mr. D. in defence of 
presbytery. Let us examine his sentiments. 

The assertion that, at this time, the elders of the 
church at Jerusalem were uninspired, is a mere 
assumption without proof; nay, considering the 
frequency of extraordinary gifts in those early days, 
it is improbable. The idea that the apostles could 
not co-operate with them, or with the brethren, in 
this deliberation, without stripping themselves of 
their apostolical superiority, is no better. It is 
founded on the supposition, that there is no proper 
mode of such co-operation, but that adopted in 
presbyteries. On the same feeble footing, is ground- 
ed the assertion that, in this case, " apostles and 
elders consulted on equal terms." — We have two 
speeches of apostles recorded, but none of elders. 
These decided the point. The instant concurrence 
of the whole assembly in their views, evinces 
strong sentiments of their inspiration and superior 
authority, and the suitable deference paid to them 
in this case. Again, the apostles, elders, and bre- 
thren, say, " It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and 
to us." Will any one allege, that the insertion of 
the expression " and to as" degrades the authority cf 
the Holy Ghost, or indicates, that the parties men- 
tioned were all on a level? Such, however, would be 
the tendency of our author's reasoning, if applied to 
these words. — He cannot reply, " The decree cf 
the elders, apostles, &c. was binding, because it 
was conformable to the mind of the Spirit;" for, 
says he, " on this hypothesis, it was not at ail 
binding as their decree; the scriptural seiitim< i s 
of any private man, or of a child, would have had 
I 2 



100 



the same obligation. The transaction cannot be 
thus explained away without manifest absurdity," 
p. 365, 366. But let us see how our author's 
reasoning bears on the point in hand. " An im- 
portant question, not of fact, but of doctrine, on 
which the peace and enlargement of the Gentile 
churches depended," p. 368, 369, is agitated at 
Antioch. The church there, had among themselves 
abundance of acknowledged, inspired, and apostolic^ 
authority j for deciding the point. This, however, 
was not likely to terminate the dispute, and produce 
submission; hence, the question is referred to an 
assembly, in w T hose decision all would rest: — By 
this assembly, the controversy was satisfactorily 
terminated," and " the privileges" of the Gentile 
converts " were established by such authority as 
would preclude the danger of future disturbance," 
p. 388. But this assembly was composed of persons 
divested of inspired and apostolical authority, and 
" acting on a level with the ordinary pastors of the 
church." 

The fair inference is, that a meeting of unin- 
spired church officers were vested with an authority 
for deciding important questions of doctrine; 
an authority more respected, more proper for the 
purpose, more effectual for establishing privileges 
and precluding the danger of future disturbance, 
than ""the authority of the inspired apostles and 
prophets. And that this is a proper precedent 
for cases of emergency. In other words, an or- 
dinary synod is vested with an authority for decid- 
ing important doctrinal questions, not only equal, 
but superior to inspired or apostolical authority. 
Could Mr. D. establish this point, he would effec- 
tually magnify his office, and enhance the dignity 
of classical presbyteries; but he would, in the same 
proportion, degrade the importance of inspiration. 

I cannot think of a more suitable antidote to such 
malignant error, than to set in opposition to the 



101 



reasonings of Mr. D. the partizan of presbytery, 
his own sound arguments, w hen he appears as the 
defender of Christianity and of inspiration. On the 
inspiration of the apostles, and the necessity of this, 
in order that they might agree to extend the privi- 
leges of the gospel to the Gentiles, he thus reasons: 
« The Jews looked down with disdain upon the 
Gentiles, as a people whom God had for ever 
abandoned, and they could not bear to think, that 
those accursed idolaters, whom they despised and 
abhorred, should ever stand upon equal terms with 
them in the favour of their Maker. This national 
prejudice was strongest among the common people, 
and to this class all the writers of the New Testa- 
ment, save Paul, and, perhaps, Luke, belonged. 
We learn from themselves, that they were at first 
as reluctant as any of their countrymen, to admit 
the Gentiles to a participation of the privileges of 
the gospel. Whence did these men become zeal- 
ous advocates for the Gentiles, publish to them the 
glad tidings of salvation, and received them, by 
baptism, into the christian church, though, by so 
doing, they offended the prejudices, and provoked 
the resentment of their unbelieving brethren? — 
Whence did these selfish men become liberal, these 
bigots philanthropists? Whence did fishermen and 
publicans form more exalted ideas of divine love, 
than the most enlightened doctors in Judea? The 
following words of an apostle furnish an answer, 
and point out the only method of accounting for this 
singular fact in the history of the human mind. 
1 Ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of 
God, which is given me to you ward; how that by 
revelation he made known to me the mystery, 
which in other ages was not made known unto the 
sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy 
apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gen- 
tiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, 
I 3 



102 



and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gos- 
pel, Eph. iii. 2, 3, 5, 6." Essay on Inspiration^ 
p. 92, 93. 

Indeed, the book is replete with similar sentiments. 
On the dissonance between this extract and quota- 
tion from the apostle's writings, and Mr.D.'s reason* 
ings against the inspiration of the apostles in the 
assembly at Jerusalem, and in forming their decree £ 
the reader will make his own reflections. The 
extract, I shall account his real sentiment; the 
reasonings in the lecture, I shall impute to an over- 
sight induced by party zeal. 

Having laboured to find, in the want of inspired^ 
or apostolical authority, a resemblance between 
the assembly at Jerusalem and a modern synod, our 
author attempts to complete the parity, by the 
exclusion of popular interference: — " No reference 
was made to the brethren at large; they took no 
part in the discussion; and from them the decree 
derived no authority." Whatever may be said of 
the first of these assertions, the second is certainly 
inaccurate, and the last doubtful. Mr. D. tells us, 
that the elders consulted along with the apostles on 
equal terms. He has no evidence that they ever 
spoke a word, except that they were mentioned along 
with the apostles in the reference and decree. None 
of their speeches are recorded; but there is equal 
reason to think that the brethren took part in the 
discussion, nay> there is, in the words, stronger reason:. 
— The decree bears, that * the apostles, elders, and 
brethren, were assembled with one accord,' verse 
23 — 25, that is, on one business, and with one design. 
The decree pleased, and was sent by them, thus 
combined. In the discussion, previous to Peter's 
speech, there was « much disputing." It is quite 
arbitrary, and begging the question, to confine this 
disputing to elders, or supposed delegates. After 
Peter's speech, " the multitude kept silence and gave 



103 



audience to Barnabas and Paul." This plainly shows, 
that they had been speaking previously, a thing 
which would not be suffered in a modern synod. 
Of the quantum of the authority derived from the 
brethren, let Mr. D. himself speak. He grants, 
that the suffrage of the people might contribute to 
cause a more cordial reception of the decree among 
the Gentiles, and was probably requested for that 
purpose, p. 385. He should remember, it was that 
for the very same, or a similar purpose, the whole 
reference was made, and the decree passed and 
transmitted — to obtain a cordial agreement, among 
the brethren, to the privileges of the Gentiles. 

Such is Mr. D.'s success, in attempting to prove 
the parity between modern synods and the meeting 
of the apostles, elders, and brethren, recorded Acts 
xv. Let us hear Mosheim on the same subject: 

" What is said of councils of the first century, 
and of the divine right of councils, rests on the 
custom and opinion of later times, that is, on the 
most uncertain foundations. No one, let him try 
as he will, shall find an instance of such kind of 
meetings inthe history of the most ancient Christians. 
From those convocations of church rulers, of, and 
after the second century, which are properly denom- 
inated councils-, our Jerusalem assembly is totally 
different. It is mere trifling to deduce from it the 
origin of councils. " . De Reb. Christ. Ante Const. 
Mag. * 

So much for the manner of framing, and the 
authority employed in this decree. On the parts 
of the discussion, and the decree itself, our author 
advances nothing peculiar. It seems probable, 
however, that in our version of the Old Testament, 
the words in Amos, quoted by James, ver. 16, 17, 
should remain remnant of men y instead of w remnant of 

* In Mr. G. Ewing's Lecture on Acts xv. 



104 



Edom" The difference of the words, in the original, 
is not so great as that between our words blessed 
and blest. This reading would more accord with 
the scope of the context, in the prophet, and would 
be more consonant to the sentiments of James, 
which we are sure are the authentic meaning. On 
verse 21, Mr, D. seems to restrict the reference to 
the prohibition of things strangled and blood; as a 
reason why the Gentiles should " concede a little 
to the prejudices of the Jews," p. 382. It seems 
used by James, however, as the reason why the 
epistolary decree should be sent, not only to An- 
tioch, but also to the other churches in Syria and 
Cilicia; q. d. Moses hath in every city adherents, 
who may trouble the Gentile believers with words, 
as. such have done in Antioch, commanding them 
to be circumcised-, therefore, let us write to them, 
to liberate them from every burden, save certain 
necessary things. This view also invalidates Mr. 
D. s argument against the perpetual obligation 
of one article in this decree, the prohibition of 
things strangled and blood, as a necessary thing. 
See p. 381, 382. To disprove this, he employs 
several pages. His arguments are obviated, or ably 
refuted, in a lecture on the same passage, by Mr. 
Greville Ewing, of Glasgow. 

Our author concludes — " From this illustration, 
it appears, that the church in the apostolic age, was 
not broken down into small parts, but united by 
the external bond of a general government," p. 388. 
By this time, perhaps, some reader will doubt of 
Mr. D. s qualifications for giving a true account 
of the apostolic church. He, undoubtedly, seems 
not to be acquainted with congregational union, as 
it exists in many christian churches of the present 
day. 



CHRISTIAN HOPE 

DISTINGUISHED FROM 

PRES UMPTION, 

BEING 

STRICTURES ON A MEMOIR, 

BY THE 

BeD, (5eorge ferment, EonDon, 



This title would lead to notice a great variety of 
abuses, the treatment of which would extend be- 
yond the proper limits of an Essay. I shall, there- 
fore, at present, confine myself to one view of this 
evil. It is a view, however, which is of very ex- 
tensive application. It is exhibited in a very re- 
ligious book, and by a character of very pious 
fame, and is, therefore, more likely to be hurtful \ 
for " Error never entwines so firmly around the 
human heart, as when it comes recommended by 
the patronage of an eminently pious name." 

The book in which this evil is patronised, is 
entitled, " Memoirs of Eminently Pious Women , vol. 
2, by the Rev. George Jerment," London. It 
contains, as the title page states, the lives of per- 
sons " examplary in every grace which can adorn 
the female character." Hence, we are justified in 
stating, that the incidents related appear, in general, 
as recommendations to the characters. This is still 



106 



more certain, respecting Elizabeth West, the char- 
acter which shall be the subject of the present stric- 
tures. She is denominated, " rich with respect to 
vital religion, a star of the first magnitude." The 
extracts given, are said to discover " lively, fervent 
godliness," and to contain « matter substantial and 
sweet." Whoever takes Mr. J.'s word for it, must 
reckon the experience mentioned, to be a most de- 
sirable christian attainment, and exceedingly pro- 
per for imitation. By these extracts too, we may 
form a tolerably accurate idea of Mr. J.'s own 
views. Both the attainments and the views, how- 
ever, w r ill be found awfully diverse from the mind 
of God. 

The subject of the memoir, was an adept at man- 
ufacturing the word of God into a sense different 
from the mind of the Holy Spirit, by that sort of 
faith which renders something true, by believing 
it, which was not true previous to such belief. 
That faith which does not rest on any evidence in 
scripture or reason. A single instance will both 
illustrate and confirm my position. 

Says she, page 123, " about this time, I could 
see no change to the better on my father, and was 
strangely weighted with his case. On Friday morn- 
ing (next) they sent, and told me he was not well ; 
about nine o clock he grew very weak — then I cried 
to the Lord to hear my last request for him : I con- 
tinued pleading, with a vexed and troubled spirit, 
until it pleased the Lord, in his great condescend- 
ency, to bear in that word in my mind, Mai. iii. 16." 
" He shall be mine in that day that I make up my 
jewels, and I will spare him as a man doth his son 
that serveth him. This (says she) brought with 
it a sweet calm, and composure of spirit to me, so 
that I came patiently, and saw him depart this life." 

It is here evident, that this M sweet calm and 
composure of spirit," arose from an application of 



107 



this text to the dying person; and that the r < vexed 
and troubled spirit" had arisen from the desire after, 
and want of such a comfortable communication as 
it was now supposed to convey. We are also to 
remember, that the dying person gave " no appear- 
ance of a work of grace begun yet." Now, in 
such a case, to expect any intimation such as was 
derived from the text, is obvious presumption. 
"Whatever divine sovereignty may grant at the latest 
hour, " secret things belong to the Lord." What 
he has revealed respecting others, is, " By their 
fruits ye shall know them." But it is farther evi- 
dent, that this text, to give this comfort, is perverted 
to a sense not only diverse from, but directly oppo- 
site to the mind of the Holy Spirit. The text does 
not speak in favour of such as gave " no appearance 
of a work of grace." It speaks of another class — 
" A book of remembrance was written for them 
that feared the Lord and that thought on his name." 
" They shall be mine, saith the Lord, in the day that 
I make up my jewels, &c. And again, " Then 
shall ye return and discern between the righteous 
and the wicked ; between him that serveth God and 
him that serveth him not." 

How presumptuous is it for erring sinners thus 
to add to, dimmish from, and alter the words 
of the Most High, to serve their own private 
purposes. But the presumption will appear still 
more shocking, when we recollect that this per- 
version of the scripture is imputed to the Spirit 
of God. Says the writer, " it pleased the Lord 
in great' condescendencv to bear in that word in 
my mind." This bearing in, is an uncouth expres- 
sion; but it appears to have been a term of art for 
the great arcanum of delusive experience, by which 
any text could be understood in a peculiar sense. — 
Thus, the reveries of enthusiasm, and lies suggested 
by the spirit of delusion, are imputed to the Spirit 



10$ 



of Truth. I need scarcely add, that all the comfort 
founded on such abuse of the word of God must 
be delusive. " The word of the Lord shall stand." 
Those who pervert it, only " sport themselves with 
their own deceivings." 

It would be needless to insist so much on one 
instance in the experience of Elisabeth West, if it 
were not a proper specimen of that exercise on 
account of which she is denominated M a star of the 
first magnitude." Her diary is replete with such 
abuses. Perversion of this sort abounds also in 
others of these Memoirs. Indeed, the faculty of 
such perversion; the attainment of such inbearings of 
texts, seems to be, in Mr. Jerment's estimation, the 
very marrow of vital religion, and the essence of 
communion with God. This clergyman is by no 
means singular in this respect; the diary of E. W. 
is the echo of the sermons she was used to hear. 
And similar sermons still enjoy a very extensive 
popularity, and are looked up to as the standards of 
excellence. 

Nay, such exercise is quite consonant to the doc- 
trine concerning justifying faith, which Mr. J 8 and 
many others of great religious fame, still defend. 
E. W. had as good reason to pervert, Mai. iii. 16. 
to answer her own fancy 5 as the Rev. Thomas Bos- 
ton had to pervert, Psai. lxxi. 14. to the end, into 
an assurance that he should certainly succeed in his 
investigation of the Hebrew accentuation, and that 
the result would be much to the glory of God, (see 
his memoirs.) She had as good a right, as Mr. 
Marshall had to believe his own justification, " with- 
out any evidence from scripture, sense, or reason." 
This exercise is the application, and practical use 
of the doctrine of appropriation , which Marshall, 
Boston, and many others have laboured, and still 
labour to defend. As it constitutes the marrow of 
their religion; and is but the legitimate property of 



ip9 

kfflan invention, it is dear to the human mind, and 
is tenaciously retained. Various classes use it in 
various degrees of perfection. It is largely exem- 
plified by the Moravians, in their use of " the word 
cf the day;" but its most extensive, and most absurd 
application, is among another class. — These are 
very strict religionists. They very properly con- 
demn the profane custom of card-playing; yet 
they substitute a game, which, howevet religious 
it appears, is certainly more wicked. A pack, or 
packs, of cards are prepared*, on which appear a 
great variety of texts, one on each. Thus furnished, 
the religious party cut and shiffle for instructions, 
promises, and admonitions; and according to good 
or ill luck, their hopes and fears fluctuate. 

Such are the legitimate consequences of that 
principle of appropriation, which supposes that a 
person becomes interested in a promise, by applying 
it to himself; instead of holding, that " a person 
becomes interested in Christ, by believing the truth 
concerning him, and becomes, through him, inter- 
ested in all the exceeding great and precious pro- 
mises of the gospel." 

This faith of the Christian, differs widely from 
the presumption of enthusiasm; in its commence- 
ment* and in every period of its existence. 

The enthusiast, thinks he attains to an interest 
in Christ, by struggling to do something which he 
calls " closing with Christ," or with the offers of 
the gospel; or, by believing that whatever Christ 
hath done for sinners, he did it for himself. — As 
there is great room to doubt of the manner in which 
this act of closing has been performed, and of the sin- 
cerity of the heart in it as it respects the supposed 
terms of the gospel; the steadiness of the confidence 
must fluctuate with the person's good or ill opinion 
of himself, and his acts. And as the belief that 

Christ died for me," is not supported by any evi- 



dence in the first instance; it must often depend on 
the state of the animal spirits, and fluctuate according 
as the views are sanguine or not. Hence, such 
faith will be affected by various depressing, or ex*- 
hilarating circumstances in the state of business, of 
the weather, or the like. 

The true believer, on the other hand, is really, 
and in his own view, passive, when first he is made 
to " see the salvation of God;" — when the truth 
shines into his mind. Hence, he is not engaged 
in regulating the state of his heart and affections to 
render it true. It is true independently and pre- 
viously. It is abundantly confirmed, and infallibly 
-established. It is equally confirmed, that " to 
whomsoever of mankind its truth appears, to him 
is justification bestowed " Hence, to « show the 
salvation of God 79 to any one, amounts to the same 
as to communicate it; for, when it is seen, it is 
enjoyed. God displays his grace; guilt blotted 
out; pardon of sin; the adoption, privileges, and 
prospects of sons of God; and upon all the bless- 
ings inscribes, " to him who seeth" — Unto all, and 
upon all who believe without difference. Hence, the 
only inquiry in which the comfort of the sinner is 
concerned, as to this point is, " are these things 
true?" If he sees them true % he " has joy and peace 
in believing." Having assurance that the testi- 
mony of God, concerning his Son is true, there is 
no room for any question whether he believes it or 
not; the former, rendering the latter necessary ; and 
he who believes is saved. 

Nor is there less difference between the enthu- 
siast and believer of the truth, in their after exer- 
cise. If the enthusiast is distressed by conscious 
guilt, he can find no relief, unless he can apply some 
text particularly to himself; and if he can do this, 
it wiil be in virtue of some circumstance, which 
•?ives it a meaning different from its general sense. 



ill 



The state of his desires, or the tenor of his prayers, 
or the spontaneous occurrence of the text to his 
mind, or any other such circumstance, will lead to 
such a use of a text. And unless such a use be 
attained, there is no peace. Hence, such com- 
plaints as these: " of all the promises in the Bible, 
I could apply none to myself." And when no 
promise can give relief in its real meaning, the 
words of some text, or half sentence, occurring to 
the mind, will fill the soul with a kind of joy and 
peace. Thus, the text " man thy sins be forgiven 
thee/' or " his name shall be Jedidiah," or such 
like, founds the peace of many a deluded soul. 

But the believer, by divine teaching, knows, that 
there are given to him, and all believers, iC many 
great and precious promises;" — that if any [Christian) 
man sin, there is an Advocate with the Father Jesus 
Christ the righteous, who is also the propitiation 
for sin, &c; that " the blood of Christ, the Son of 
God, cleanseth from all sin," &c. Thus he is 
relieved, not by imposing any private sense on a 
text, or coming new promises; but by taking the 
word of God in its public catholic meaning; — in 
that sense in which it ensures blessings to all the 
children of God. Therefore, his peace is solid and 
lasting; whilst that of the other, is fleeting in its 
nature, and delusive while it endures. And no 
wonder; the one rests on the word of God; the 
other on a fabrication of the erring mind. 

Accordingly, when the enthusiast obtains joy 
and comfort, it is not from the sense of any text, as 
fixed by the context, but as fixed by some other 
incident. He is praying for some blessing; in the 
mean time, a text occurs, such as, " I have heard 
thee concerning this thing." This is taken hold of, 
and presumptuous joy is the consequence; or, per- 
haps, such words may occur, as " How darest thou 
mention my name," and then the soul is meon* 
solable. K 2 



112 



The believer, on the other hand, draws his joy 
and comfort from sources common to all believers', 
and accessible to them at all times. Hence, his mind 
always obtains joy and peace in believing. He 
feels no need of those private intimations of bless- 
ings, or deliverances to himself > in which the enthu- 
siast lives. He " knows, by the Holy Spirit, that 
all things shall work together for good, to them 
who love God;" and, that " He who spared not 
his own Son, will, with him, also freely give all 
things;" and he knows, that " all the promises 
are yea, and Amen, in Christ Jesus." 

In regard to temporal events, the exercise of 
those two characters, is not less distinguished. It 
is the duty of Christians, to be concerned about 
such matters, and to make them the subject of 
their prayers to God. The believer, thus prays 
with submission for his own worldly prosperity, 
for his family, for the church, for the nation to 
which he belongs, and for its rulers, as also for 
mankind at large. Having expressed his desires, he 
leaves particular events, to be ascertained by time. 

The enthusiast prays for similar objects, and 
thinks he- obtains intimations of particular answers 
to his prayers, by the suggestion of particular texts. 
Thus, he will profess to have obtained the fore- 
knowledge of the recovery or death of a particular 
person, the success or failure of an undertaking, a 
victory, or a defeat in national warfare, or the like. 
Such will complain, if an affecting and unexpected 
event befall them, that " the Lord hid it from 
them," u e. they had no previous suggestion of it. 

The exceeding evil of such enthusiasm, is appa- 
rent in a variety of views. 

1. The texts on which the presumptions are 
founded, are exceedingly tortured to support them. 
The truth of God is changed into a lie. God is dis^ 
. onoured, and his word degraded. 



113 



2. The delusive hopes, founded on such sugges- 
tions, must frequently be disappointed. Thus, we 
find Boston, (vide Memoirs,) when an event did not 
follow as he expected, remark that " God has a 
sovereign way of acting in these matters," q. d. 
Either this way of using the wordof God is fallacious; 
or rather, God has a sovereign way of disappoint- 
ing true faith. This tends much to shake our faith 
in the veracity of God, and the truth of his word. 

3. Such disappointments, must mar any lasting 
comfort, and extend even to the concerns of the 
safety of the soul. Thus, a person observing in his 
own knowledge, a supposed promise fail, of which 
he was as well persuaded, as of his own salvation, 
and on similar grounds; (i. e. by taking a text out 
of its catholic or general sense, and imposing on it 
a sense peculiar to the case) he gets into despair 
about his own future happiness. Thus, a person 
who thought he had a promise of children, along 
with a promise of salvation, despairs of salvation 
because he is childless. On the other hand, pre- 
sumption is as frequent and as hurtful, as despair; 
and the casual fulfilment of an expectation, may 
only swell the hope of the hypocrite. I do not sa y 
that none of such enthusiastic characters, are real 
Christians; yet, it is evident, that such enthusiasm, 
forms no part of real Christianity, but tends much 
to counteract it. 

The differences in the exercises of these different 
characters, might be largely detailed. To sum all 
up, however, in very few words; Whilst the en- 
thusiast " feeds on the wind," and indulges in the 
hope of the hypocrite, according as a deceived heart 
hath led him astray; and if he continue resting in 
such confidence, " shall lie down in sorrow;" the 
believer " lives by the faith of the Son of God, 
who loved him, and gave himself for him." He 
has his trust on the stone " laid in Zion for a foun- 
K 3 



114 



aation," and « shall not be confounded;" for his 
hope is not founded in the reveries of a vain imagi- 
nation, but in " the word of God, which abideth 
for ever." 

When it is considered, that such presumptuous 
conceits, as enthusiasts indulge, are ascribed to the 
suggestion of the Spirit of God-, it is hoped, that, 
even in Mr. Jerment's view, the evil will appear 
too serious to be contenanced or even spared* 



@>tmon $©agu0 anD ©tmon peter. 



have, in the 8th chapter of Acts, an account 
of those two ancient characters, and an interview- 
between them. Simon Magus seems to have been 
a very extraordinary man, and exceedingly popular 
in a very eminent city, Samaria. The inhabitants, 
of all ranks, regarded him with high veneration, 
and had done so for a long time. At the time 
Simon Peter appeared in that city, he seems to 
have been highly respected in a religious point of 
view; he was to them as an oracle of God, and 
seemed invested with power almost divine; he 
asserted his own dignity, and gained the ear of the 
people; so that all, from the least to the greatest, 
gave heed to him, saying, c < this man is the great 
power of God." One chief engine of his fame, 
was his power of working wonders, which others 
could neither explain nor imitate. 

Simon Peter was not a person of high renown, 
among such people as the inhabitants of Samaria. 
He was a low bred man, and his speech marked with 
a provincial vulgarity; he had been originally neither 
a prophet, nor a prophet's son, nor a scribe, nor a 
pharisee, nor a doctor of the law, but men had 
taught him to take fishes from his youth. How- 
ever, the Founder of Christianity, having all power 



116 



in heaven and earth, had, by this time, made him 
a successful fisher of men. Before this, on one 
occasion, he had taken three thousand, in the net 
of the gospel, at one draught, Acts ii. 41, and his 
following success was correspondent. He was, in- 
deed, qualified for the work with wondrous powers. 
In particular, when, by divine guidance, he laid his 
hands on believers, they received the Holy Spirit^ 
and were also endowed with wonder-working gifts. 
Previous to his arrival at Samaria, Philip, one of 
his friends, had preached the gospel there, and it 
had been confirmed with signs following. Hence, 
many believed the gospel, and acted under its in- 
fluence. Simon Magus too, by the different nature 
and tendency of the wonders wrought, was over- 
powered into a profession of that gospel, which was 
so confirmed; he was still more astonished, when he 
observed the gifts of the Holy Spirit communicated, 
by laying on of the hands of Simon Peter, and 
others. 

Whatever knowledge of the truth he had thus 
attained, he still laboured under a great mistake. 
He thought that the teachers of Christianity made 
a trade of it, and also that they acted by their 
own skill or power. Hence, as perhaps he 
could teach others to imitate his own miracles, he 
thought the apostles could do so too; and as he had 
no higher aim than the gaining of money, he 
thought they were like himself. Hence, he pro- 
posed to purchase the power. This proposal was 
so repugnant to the whole spirit of that system, 
which levels every mountain and exalts every valley; 
so hostile to the nature of a kingdom, not of this 
world, the King of which, voluntarily appeared in 
this world as an indigent dependant, and promised 
his subjects the same kind of treatment which him- 
self had experienced; and so derogatory to the gift 
itself, which was not of temporal, but of eterna 



117 



importance, that Simon Peter at once saw the 
character of the man, and the nullity of all his 
pretensions to Christianity, and, filled with holy 
indignation, he thus reprehends him: " Thy 
money perish with thee, because thou thoughtest the 
gift of God could be purchased with money. Thou hast 
neither part nor lot in this matter, thou art yet in 
the gall of bitterness, and bond of iniquity, repent 
of this, thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps 
the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee," At 
this reprehension, Simon Magus stood confounded 
and convicted; and requested an interest in the 
other's prayers. Indeed, his sin seems to have been 
exceedingly heinous, and it did not so much consist 
in the single act of offering the money to the apostles, 
as in that erroneous state of mind from which this 
flowed. This reprehension, then, must apply to 
every act which bewrays the same erroneous state of 
mind. Simon's sin consisted in the " thought of 
his heart," that money could purchase what was 
the gift of God. 

This error appears in two views. He is guilty of 
it, who thinks that any sum, however great, is of any 
avail to purchase such an enjoyment. He is equally 
guilty of this error, who thinks any sum, however 
small, absolutely necessary to the attainment; since 
6< without money, and without price " is the motto on 
them all. 

These principles may be brought to a practical 
application to office, or superiority in the church. 
Indeed, the avowed buying or selling of offices in 
the church, have been long denominated Simony. 
I shall consider Simon's error, as it bears on these 
offices. Every office in the church, which has the 
warrant of God, is God's gift to the person invested 
with the office. Hence, " he who desireth the 
office of a bishop, desireth a good gift," and if he 
possess the office according to the mind of God, it 



118 



is God's gift to him. Accordingly, the ciders of 
the church of Ephesus are enjoined to take heed to 
the flock, over which the Holy Spirit had made 
them bishops, Acts xx. 

Now, whatever plan of church management puts 
this office within the reach of the person only who 
has money, or out of the reach of the person who 
has it not; yea, whatever plan of church manage- 
ment, renders this office more attainable by the 
wealthy man or the wealthy man's son, than by the 
indigent man or the indigent man's son, must 
inevitably involve the error of Simon Magus. 

It is needless here to make application to the 
managements of churches, incorporated with the 
nations of this world, where livings, as they are 
called, are bought, sold, and bartered, where a patron 
presents to a benefice, and where his interest is to 
be procured by wealthy connections; by political 
service; by feats of horsemanship, or of intemper- 
ance; perhaps by fawning or pimping, or by some- 
thing equally extraneous to religion; it would be an 
insult on reason to adduce arguments to evince the 
existence and influence of the error of Simon. 
Says a preacher, in such a church, < s Have not I a 
right to feel indignant, if, after spending so much 
time, and so much money, to qualify me for a public 
instructor, an illiterate mechanic shall have twenty 
hearers for my one." Such a candid avowal is rare y 
but the sentiment is common. 

In churches too, which affect high degrees of 
reformation, we may see two young men of un- 
equal wealth, but equal in piety, utterance, and 
in the desire of the office of a bishop-, or, per- 
haps, the advantage in these respects, is on the 
side of the less wealthy. Between each, and the 
object of his wish, there stand several years of 
academical education, in attendance on philo- 
sophical and theological studies. But money must 



119 



be had to pay for the academical attainments, or t<2 
support the person while he studies, or both. Here 
the monied man goes forward, but the pennyless 
person is at a stand. The monied man attains the 
gift, the indigent attains it not. Why? Because 
what is called " the gift of God," is, in these 
churches, to be purchased with money. 

Now, it seems evident, that in, the true christian 
church, a kingdom not of this world, 100A sterling, 
is a very insignificant consideration, and if so, no 
good reason can be adduced, why 100/. sterling's 
worth of Latinity, Greek, Mathematics, Antiquities, 
or 100/. sterling's worth of attendance on those sub- 
jects, (for this is the chief consideration,) should not 
be equally unessential. Money, and money-worth, 
equally attainable by the impious and the pious, must 
be equally unessential to real Christianity. 

Again, every office-bearer in the christian church 
who is according to the mind of God, is the gift 
of God, to that church. God gave some apostles, 
some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors, and 
teachers y for the perfecting of the body, according 
to his ancient promise, u I will give them pastors, 
after mine own heart." — 

Every plan of church management, then, which 
renders such officers attainable by wealthy societies, 
and unattainable by those which are poor, renders 
this gift an article purchasable with money, and is 
deeply tinctured with the error of Simon. Jesus 
gave it as a mark of genuine Christianity, iX to the 
poor the gospel is preached/" These plans bewray 
how far short they come of genuine Christianity, by 
saying practically, " the gospel shall not be preached 
to the poor." Such an advantage, is necessarily 
given to the rich, by all those plans, which require 
an academical course of study, as an essential pre- 
requisite to a pastor, or preacher, for this supposes 
a person who must be supported by the society. 



120 



It is more obviously given by all those plans Xvh'ich 
make it essential, that the society support the pastor. 
It is true, that those who preach the gospel, should 
live of the gospel. Such is their right, and such is 
the church's duty, where it is practicable. But to 
say, that a society, where this is totally impractica- 
ble, cannot be as truly a church approved of God, and 
entitled to all the privileges of such a church; is to 
say, that God prefers the wealthy for their wealth; 
to involve the error of Simon, and to contradict 
the plainest dictates of scripture. Said Paul to the 
Ephesian pastors: " These hands have ministered 
to my necessities, and the necessities of those who 
were with me. — I have taught you all things, how 
that so labouring, ye ought to support the weak, and 
to remember the saying of the Lord Jesus, how, that 
it is more blessed to give than to receive," Acts xx. 

This rule may be compared with several modern 
ecclesiastical plans in this country. And, passing 
over the case of churches of worldly connection, 
some of the strictest sects may be viewed, and will 
exhibit as follows: God gave to the church pastors, 
but for want of money, the poor little society can- 
not obtain the gift. Perhaps, they fix on an object, 
and present a call; if so, the question is, " what 
salary?" If this be too little, the affair is ended* 
They cannot " support the gospel," and they shall 
not get it in that way. Suppose the pastor fixed, and 
the wealth of the society to fall into decay. Now 
that its purchase money, cannot be advanced, the 
gift of God is withdrawn: u e. the pastor is loosed 
from his charge. A similar plan is observed, in 
the quantity, and quality of the gift. These are 
distributed, as nearly as can be guessed, in the exact 
ratio of the wealth of the societies. One very poor, 
gets sermon but once a month; one a little more 
wealthy, may observe public worship three times a 
month; but it is often so contrived, that the most 



121 



despised preacher, is sent to the most despised 
society. While this is the case of poor societies ; 
those which are wealthy, have public worship every 
Lord's day, and may have a plurality of pastors, and 
those of the most esteemed and accomplished sort. 
Thus, the poor society is frequently deprived of its 
pastor. 

A similar principle regulates the plans of many 
respectable places of worship. Among many classes, 
it would be reckoned an insult to seek or expect a 
pastor, unless the society can erect, or have erected 
a respectable edifice. If it be a dissenting society, 
a steeple and bells cannot be expected, because 
these are prohibited by the law of the land, (the 
establishment had rather exercise the office of bell- 
ringing for all the dissenters, than allow them to 
publish by bells, their sectarian existence). But in 
all other respects, many dissenters seem to hold 
that a respectable house is essential to a christian 
congregation. Now, as a house cannot be built 
without money, this is but another mode of adopt- 
ing the error of Simon. Besides, this lust for 
grandeur and respectability, involves a scriptural 
church in many difficulties. If an elegant house 
must be had, rich adherents become indispensable; 
or, if not rich, numbers must compensate. This 
leads to seek, by undue means, popularity, to ac- 
commodate, to truckle, and to please men by betray- 
ing the commandments of Christ. It leads to re- 
ceive many applicants for admission, who ought to 
be rejected, and to retain many who ought to be 
excluded. It also binds up the hands of Christians, 
that they cannot perform the good works of the 
gospel. What, by the law of Christ, belongs to 
the poor members of his body, is consumed on the 
lust for a fine house and respectability in the eyes 
of the vain world. When small christian societies 

L 



122 



" will, thus, be rich, (respectable,) they fall into' 
temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and 
Tiurtful lusts, Avhich tend to drown them (as 
churches) in destruction and jSferdition." 

Did the people of God, in such small societies, 
know their privileges, rights, and duties, did they 
know, that a company of a few mechanics, in a 
cellar, or garret, with perhaps a day-labourer or two, 
as their pastors, are often in the eye of God, a more 
pleasing sight than a gay multitude, in the most 
superb edifice, attending to the oratory of the Right 
Rev. Father in God, A. B.-D. D.-S. T. P.-F. R. S. 
they would neither relinquish the privileges, nor 
abandon the duties of public social worship, from 
regard to the vain pageantry of human invention. 

These hints claim the regard of many small soci- 
eties, both among presbyterian dissenters, and con- 
gregationalists. If the above observations be well 
founded, it will follow, that the error of Simon 
Magus is deeply engrained, in all those ecclesiastical 
plans, which give church-offices for money, or 
money worth; in all those plans which make a pre- 
vious course of human education, an essential pre- 
requisite in a preacher, or pastor; and in all those 
which require the society, in all cases, to support 
the pastor, and forbid the pastor f rpm engaging in 
worldly business, and in all which afreet expensive 
meetingJiouses. In a word, whoever is the absolute 
condemner of lay=preachers, and lay=pastors, must 
be the abettor of the error of Simon. 

In the mean time, I have no doubt that many 
excellent ones are engaged in such plans, who hate 
the error, and execrate the memory of the sorcerer. 
These, as the friends of the opposite truth, should 
show themselves friendly; or at least show cause 
why they should not be blamed with practically 
aiding, what in their hearts they hate. 



THE 



COVENANT OF JEHOVAH 

WITH 

ABRAHAM. 



The term covenant has often been misunderstood. 
Many writers confine its meaning to a contract, 
mutually entered into by different parties. The 
word is, no doubt, sometimes used in this sense; 
but it is frequently used in cases in which this sense 
will not apply. Thus, we read of a covenant made 
with the beasts of the field, the trees, &c. The 
word, then, must have a larger meaning, which 
renders it applicable to the different cases. 

It appears in the New Testament scriptures, as 
the translation of the Greek " diatheke", which liter- 
ally applies to what is "set between," or "'interpos- 
ed," and expresses nearly the same literal idea as the 
words "interposal, interposition," or "intercourse." 
In the Old Testament, it appears as the translation 
of the Hebrew " beriih" which literally applies to 
« cutting," and mav express either the same idea, 
L 2 



124 



as " intersection, division," and separation, or be 
equivalent to " pattern, form", or « shape," vi%.. 
made by « cutting." To. allege, that it is taken 
from the dissection of victims offered in sacrifice at 
covenanting, is both far-fetched, and savours too 
much of the confined use of the word. 

The word " covenant," may literally refer to 
commerce, but mare likely to " coming together," 
or u convening." 

These ideas of " interposition," according to the 
Greek; « intersection," according to the Hebrew; and 
« convening" or " convention," according to the 
Latin, may be viewed as nearly equivalent ^ for the 
" point" or « line" at which objects meet, is the 
point or line of their intersection, or division. 

The general idea which will suit all these cases, 
and also the texts in which the words occur, may be 
well expressed by the term " project" or " plan 
of intercourse," between, or among several parties. 
When only one of the parties has right or power to 
dictate the " project of intercourse" a covenant may 
be a law or a promise. When the several parties 
have right or power to dictate in the plan of 
intercourse, it will be a mutual stipulation, such as 
that transaction among men, commonly called a 
covenant. 

The Abrahamic convenant is of the former de- 
scription. It related to matters in which none had 
any power or right to dictate, except Jehovah him- 
self. As dictated by Him, it appears, partly in the 
form of promise, and partly in the form of law. Of 
the promises made in this covenant, some were made 
in behalf of the patriarch himself, and some in be- 
half of his seed, and the same promise often favoured 
both respectively. 

To Abraham, Jehovah promised, " I will be a 
God unto thee," This comprehended all blessings* 



125 



both temporal and spiritual, as we see it afterwards 
explained in his case. It comprehended blessings 
temporal, such as " I have made thee a father of 
many nations. — Thy son who shall come out of thy 
bowels shall be thine heir. — In Isaac shall thy seed 
be called. — I will establish my covenant with him. 
I have given- the whole land of Canaan to thy seed 
for an inheritance. — Thou shalt die in a good old 
age," &c. 

Spiritual blessings to himself were also promised, 
in such expressions as these, " I will be a God unto 
thee. — Blessing I will bless thee. — I am thy shield, 
and thy exceeding great reward. — In thy seed shall 
all the families of the earth be blessed," &c. The 
blessedness of justification, which he himself en- 
joyed by faith in this promised seed, was the prime 
pattern of that blessedness which was to come on 
all the families of the earth by his seed. 

The seed of Abraham to whom the promises were 
made, were, first, the typical seed; secondly, the 
spiritual seed. The typical seed, were the fleshly 
descendants of Abraham, by Isaac, and Jacob. In 
behalf of this seed, it was promised, that they should 
be numerous as the sand of the sea, or stars of 
heaven, — that they should be saved from their op- 
pressors, — that in the fourth generation they should 
obtain the land of Canaan for an inheritance. — That, 
as a nation, they should possess this land from the 
river of Egypt, to the Euphrates. — That, as a nation, 
they should be distinguished from the nations of 
the earth, by having Jehovah for their God, whilst 
the others worshipped dumb idols, — that they should 
be governed by his laws and commandments. The 
accomplishment of these promises, explains their 
meaning and the import of such expressions as, that 
" I was a God unto them* saith the Lord." In this 
view, God said to them, " you only have I known 
L 3 



126 



of all the families of the earth, therefore will I 
punish you." 

The spiritual seed of Abraham, were, in the chief 
place, that seed in whom " all the families of the 
earth were to be blessed-,"— That seed who is Christ; 
and, in the next place, all those, both before and 
after his coming, who are blessed in him with just- 
ification by faith. — Those concerning whom it is 
said, " If ye believe, then are ye Abraham's seed, 
and heirs according to the promise." Many of this 
real spiritual seed, were of the fleshly seed of Abra- 
ham, and in the nation of Israel; but many were 
not of this pedigree, and especially after the gospel 
was preached to the Gentiles, and the blessing ©f 
Abraham extended to all nations. He then became, 
even among the Gentiles, " the father of the faith- 
ful." 

To this seed were many promises made; firsts 
indeed, to Christ the prime seed, it was promised 
that the nations should be blessed in him; and the 
blessing meant, we are assured in the New Testa- 
ment, was salvation. To the seed who became so 
by faith in him, it was promised, that Jehovah would 
be a God to them in a more excellent sense, than 
he was to the typical seed. He was to give them 
his laws, not on tables of stones, but to write them 
in their hearts, and put them in their inward parts, 
and to be their God> and make them his people, not 
according to the covenant with the typical seed, 
but by w a new covenant." And as the typical 
inheritance was promised to the typical seed, and 
given them; the real inheritance, the better city, was 
promised to the spiritual seed, and the promise shall 
be accomplished. Indeed, many of the promises 
at first made to the typical seed, are found true in 
their most eminent sense, in their accomplishment 
to the spiritual seed, just as many things said of 



127 



Melchizedec, Aaron, David, and Solomon, who 
were types, are true in their most eminent sense, of 
Christ the antitype. Thus, that most comprehen- 
sive and inclusive promise, w I will be a God to 
thy seed." And that uttered by Balaam, in its true 
and most extensive meaning, " the people shall 
dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the 
nations," &c. 

It has been alleged, that all the promises were 
made to the same seed, on the same footing; or, 
that none were made to any but the spiritual seed. 
Many things conduce to subvert that opinion. I 
shall mention one which appears conclusive. One 
of these promises was, that the seed should be 
merous, and should be brought out of bondage. This 
was fulfilled to the whole people en masse. They 
then were the seed to whom this promise was made ; 
yet many of them were not of the spiritual seed, 
for with many of them God was not well pleased. 

The Abrahamic covenant, as, in many particulars, 
it appeared in the form of promise; so it sometimes 
appeared in the form of law. Of this, the law of 
circumcision is an instance. This ordinance is de- 
nominated, God's " covenant," and those of Abra- 
ham's family who should neglect the observance, 
were to be cut off from God's people, for breaking 
his " covenant." The command to Abraham, to 
leave his country and kindred, and to go to a land 
which God should show him, seems to be of the 
same kind; and also that one — I am God Almighty, 
u walk before me, and be thou perfect;" for, that 
God might " bring on Abraham, that which he had 
spoken," it was provided that he should " command 
his children, and his household after him, and that 
they should keep the way of the Lord, to do justice 
and judgment,''^ Gen. xviii. 19. Indeed, the whole 
system of laws and ordinances given at Sinai, to 



128 



the typical seed, was only the evolution, or gradual 
accomplishment of the Abrahamic covenant. The 
same may be said of the gospel and its institutions. 

I am aware, that some reckon it very absurd, to 
suppose that two dispensations, so opposite as to 
be termed the " ministration of death," and the 
" ministration of righteousness," should be involved 
in the same covenant. But, besides that, we find 
Moses celebrating the giving of the law to Israel, 
as the accomplishment of that same benefit, which 
forms the leading article in the promissory part 
of the Abrahamic covenant, " I will be a God 
to thy seed." Such should recollect, that there 
is nothing more difficult to explain in the differ- 
ent dispensations being involved in the same cov- 
enant, than in being dictated, and promulgated 
by the same God. They should also recollect, 
that the same lav/, which, in one view, is the 
ministration of d^ath, is, in another view, perfect; 
converting the soul and making the simple wise. 
And they should remember, that the ministration 
of the gospel itself, is, to some, " the savour of life 
unto life," and to others, " the savour of death unto 
death." The Abrahamic covenant will be found 
to involve not only the Sinai covenant, but the 
whole plan of divine intercourse with man, in regard 
to the way of salvation, from the time of its pro- 
mulgation till the end of the world. 

The laws of the covenant respected Abraham 
himself, or his typical seed, or spiritual seed; but in 
different respects. The law of circumcision, for 
example, was enjoined on Abraham, and on all the 
typical seed. To him it served as a token of his 
separation from the world as a father, and also as a 
token of his personal justification. To the typical 
seed, it served as a token of separation from the world, 
as the people of God and descendants of Abraham.; 



129 



but it was not a token of personal justification to anf 
of them, but such as belonged to the spiritual seed, 
Many of the spiritual seed have been exempted 
from this law; hence, it did not extend to this 
seed, 

The other laws contained in this covenant, such 
as those promulgated at Sinai, had a principal regard 
to the typical seed as a nation. To them, they 
served the purpose of distinguishing the people ex- 
ternally from the heathen, by giving them, Jehovah 
for their God; and also of regulating their external 
conduct. Thus they were a favoured nation. But 
as to the question of spiritual acceptance with God, 
these laws could not effect that purpose. In this 
view, the law was added, "because of transgression," 
and t€ that the offence might abound," and con- 
sisted of " statutes which were not good, and com- 
mandments by which men could not live;" for, " as 
many as were of the works of the law, were under 
the curse." But to x\braham and his spiritual seed, 
the same laws and ordinances, were of more excel- 
lent use. In the ceremonial, they saw the day of 
the promised seed affar off and rejoiced. Being 
justified by faith, they also lived, making the moral 
law the rule of their grateful conduct. Thus, it was, 
to them, " sweeter than honey," and more desir- 
able than " much fine gold." 

Accordingly, we find the law, as given to the typ- 
ical seed, and to the spiritual seed, distinguished by 
God himself. At Sinai, he had taken the nation 
externallyy to be their God, and that they might be 
his people, and he had made a covenant with them, 
by giving them his laws and commandments. Yet 
he speaks of making a new covenant, not according 
to this at Sinai, and the difference was to be, that 
God would write his laws in the hearts of the cov- 
enanted people, and put them in their inward parts; 



130 



and thus, not by external but real and spiritual 
relation, become their God, and render them his 
people. The former covenant, shows the aspect of 
the Abrahamic covenant to the typical seed; the 
latter, its aspect to the spiritual seed. 

At the same time that the law was thus of use 
externally to the typical seed, in separating them aa 
a nation, and in regulating their external conduct, 
its native tendency was, as " a school-master to 
lead persons to Christ, that they might be justified 
by faith." Thus, many of the typical seed, became 
also of the spiritual seed. But a principal use of 
many of the laws, respected the typical seed in their 
typical state. 

This seed, in this state, ceased when the chief 
end for which it was set apart, was accomplished. 
It was set apart for the purpose of manifesting, in 
the world, that Jehovah is the true God; for de- 
claring his will; and especially, for evincing the 
accomplishment of his promise to Abraham, of an 
illustrious descendant, in whom " all the families 
of the earth should be blessed." As soon as this 
« seed of Abraham" was fully displayed, the promise, 
as it regarded the typical seed, was accomplished^ 
and this seed, in this character, came to an end. , 

At the same time, those laws of the covenant 
which regarded this typical seed, were abrogated. 
Thus, the obligation of circumcision ceased. Sa- 
crifices ceased. The altar and temple worship 
ceased. The middle wall of partition was broken 
down. The cessation of these laws, when the ex- 
istence of the typical seed came to an end, shows, 
that these laws had their chief relation to this seed, 
and not to the spiritual seed; otherwise, as this seed 
remains, the laws would have remained also. 

Since the typical seed are no longer recognised 
in that character, and since the seed by whom the 



131 



Spiritual family is gathered in, and in whom they 
obtain the rank of children, is come; the pedigree 
of Abraham is now reckoned, and the promises of 
the covenant are fulfilled in the spiritual line. It is 
now, " If ye believe, then are ye Abraham's seed, 
and heirs according to the promise." Even the 
fleshly descendants of the patriarch, cannot be ad- 
mitted except on this footing. It is true, Israel 
shall be « restored," but it will be by faith. And 
when they are restored, there will be no restoration 
of a « middle wall of partition." Now, however, 
the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, in its 
most important sense, is carrying on. The blessing 
of the families of the earth, in the seed of Abraham, 
i. e. in Christ, is advancing more and more. The 
accomplishment , insured by the birth, death, exalta- 
tion, and reign, of the Messiah, is growing daily. 
In Jesus, men are more and more blessed, and call 
him blessed. 

It is incongruous to apply to this seed and this 
state, what belonged to, and ceased with the typ- 
ical seed and state. To apply the rules of circum- 
cision, for example, is equally incongruous, as it 
would be to apply the sacrifices, or purifications, in 
the same case. It would be like denying that 
Christ has come in the flesh, and abolished the law 
of commandments contained in ordinances. 

Such seems to be the true view of the Abrahamic 
covenant, as explained by its accomplishment. The 
sketch above given is short, and necessarily imper- 
fect, but it seems genuine. It teaches us to admire, 

1st, The condescension and grace of God in 
framing this covenant, and declaring it to Abraham. 

2d, His infinite wisdom in adapting to the ends 
to be accomplished, the means employed, accord- 
ing to the tenor of this covenant. 



Sd, His faithfulness and power in fulfilling the 
promises, respecting Abraham and his seed; from 
the day that he called him out of Ur of the Chal- 
dees, till the ascension of the Messiah, and ever 
since. 

4th, His almighty providence in ruling over all 
persons and things in the universe, to render them 
subservient to the purposes of his covenant. 

5th, These considerations demand the most firm 
and decided confidence, that the " blessing of all 
nations in Christ," according to the tenor of this 
covenant, will proceed to its full accomplishment. 
The heathen rage in opposition-, kings and princes 
combine; but he who sits in heaven shall hold them 
in derision. " Let Israel be glad in his Maker," 




J. Hedderwick & Co. Printers, \ 
26, Bell-Street, Glasgow, \ 



1 > 



■eacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
leutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
reatment Date: March 2005 

reservationTechnologie 

WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIO 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



T r ■> 

11 



ft 'A A 



A 1 A A AAA j*A-ft A a A A a . f V ! f TV < 



■ < ' • ,. - ■ v f r r r - 



i 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




013 752 766 2 A 



